Lawyer Advertising and the First Amendment

A current Supreme Court case concerning lawyer advertising, In re R.M.J., is analyzed in the context of a discussion of the diverse state regulations governing lawyer advertising and solicitation. The article considers the regulations in terms of their constitutionality, their tendency to impede effective advertising, and the effect they have on the legal profession's provision of information to potential clients about the nature, availability, and cost of legal services. Analysis of the major commercial speech cases, from Virginia State Board of Pharmacy to Central Hudson, indicates that many state rules infringe on attorneys' First Amendment rights.     

Taking Liberties with the First Amendment

Law and Philosophy -     

A new test for evaluating Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injections

An explosion of Eighth Amendment challenges to lethal injection protocols has struck the federal courts. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Hill v. McDonough,1 which empowered prisoners to bring challenges to lethal injection procedures under 42 U.S.C. para. 1983, has facilitated a flood of new lethal injection cases. In response, several courts have ordered states to alter their protocols, spurring other capital inmates to litigate such challenges. Distressingly, the courts evaluating these claims have almost no law to guide them. The last Supreme Court decision applying the Eighth Amendment to a method of execution was written in 1947; that case, Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber,2 occurred before the Eighth Amendment was applied to the states and resulted in a 4-1-4 split. Although lower courts have heard numerous challenges to execution methods, few have analyzed the constitutional validity of a method of execution in detail. Making matters worse, courts that find Eighth Amendment violations must craft equitable remedies that often amount to entirely new execution protocols. No clear precedent exists to guide courts in formulating such remedies. This Note proposes a legal standard for the administration of Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claims, focusing on lethal injection cases. Part I describes lethal injection procedures and summarizes recent litigation. Part II discusses the difficulty of evaluating lethal injection claims, analyzing both general difficulties in interpreting the Eighth Amendment and specific difficulties associated with lethal injection cases. Part III proposes a standard for addressing method-of-execution claims that attempts to balance a prisoner's interest in a painless execution with a state's interest in conducting executions efficiently. Part IV discusses remedies for unconstitutional procedures. Part V concludes.     

Violence as Obscenity: Offensiveness and the First Amendment

Many efforts have been made to restrict minors' access to violent media content basing the definition of the content to be restricted on the legal definition of obscenity, which requires the content to be offensive. Without exception, such restrictions have been found to violate the First Amendment, partly because the laws have defined the violence to be restricted with reference to its offensiveness, while the purpose of the laws has been to protect children from the harms believed to be caused by exposure to such content. This has created a problematic lack of fit between the content to be restricted and the purpose of restrictions. This article examines whether restricting minors' access to offensive violent media content to protect them from its offensiveness makes it any more likely such restrictions will survive First Amendment scrutiny.     

The First Amendment Right to Receive Online Information in Public Libraries

A decade after the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Children's Internet Protection Act, which mandated Internet filters in public libraries, filtering problems have not been resolved, and the disabling of Internet filters upon the requests of adults does not seem to be as easy or automatic as the justices had presumed. In upholding CIPA, the Supreme Court seemed to misunderstand the parameters of the disabling provision, ignored the right-to-receive doctrine, and missed the opportunity to update public forum doctrine to include the Internet. This article concludes that the Court needs to reevaluate public forum doctrine in the context of twenty-first century technology and designate Internet access in public libraries as a metaphysical public forum.     

权利之间的界限——以美国宪法第一修正案为中心

表达自由与其他宪法权利的规范语句只是作为一种预设存在,它们在水平效力的延展上都是有限度的,彼此之间也是有界限的,所谓的界限主要通过对于权利范围的限制来体现,而在对权利作限制时,其核心部分不应受到憾动。在个案情形下,任何一方的胜出,都会对另一方构成限制,而任何一清晰的主张完全可能会被确认,也完全有可能会被驳倒,指望在两个权利之间划定一条什么固定不变的界限好方便断案是不现实的,权利之间的界限有赖于法益衡量。