This dissertation will identify and describe the state of the law regarding student speech and press freedom. The following questions will be explored: What rights do young people have? What standards have state and federal courts established? To what extent and how clearly have state statutes defined student expressive rights? What do state laws say about this topic? What issues have yet to be addressed, either because a case has not raised certain issues or because the issue does not lend itself to compromise or a clear solution? How does the capacity of social media for widespread and rapid dissemination affect the balancing of First Amendment rights with other interests? Among other topics, the dissertation will discuss the development of First Amendment law, the strengthening of student expression law in the 1960s, the curtailment of student expression rights at the K-12 level in the 1980s, and state legislation that protects student expression at the K-12 and university levels. The conclusion will contain strategies for the enhancement of students’ First Amendment rights.

Long before our nation was created, European Countries acknowledged the importance of freespeech. Despite this, Great Britain later denied this right to the New England Colonies. Over thelast two centuries many battles have been fought to make freedom of speech an inalienable right tobe shared by all. A good portion of these battles have been fought in courtrooms. Judge andSupreme Court justices have dealt with issues ranging from what is a public figure to what isindecent speech. Many of these issues are not found in the original text of the Constitution. This hasforced the judges to devise tests to determine certain standards and to make discretionary choices.Today's public officials are dealing with issues that have never been dealt with before, such asInternet speech and cyberspace libel. The decisions rendered by the courts on these new issues willset a precedent for future generations. What kind of effect of this new territory, known ascyberspace, will have on the First Amendment is yet to be seen.

The debate surrounding one’s right to know what is in one’s food has increased in popularity since 2012 when California became the first state to vote on Proposition 37 which would have mandated the labeling of genetically modified organisms. Proposition 37 was defeated due to the public relations campaign mounted by Monsanto and other corporate sponsors of genetically engineered seeds. Utilizing both a visual and written content analysis, this study identified the ethically problematic public relations strategies within the campaign to defeat Proposition 37, while also examining the content to determine whether the strategic communication must be classified as commercial or political speech pursuant to the First Amendment. Even though the campaign was found to be ethically problematic when applying the five elements of the TARES Test, it was beneficial to expand those components for future evaluations regarding all issues when a corporate speaker is involved in advocacy.

For the past several years the issue of homosexual marriage has been at the forefront of an often intense debate in American political culture. Those who oppose the policy have, by and large, been in the majority. But in America, majority decisions are not automatically legal; such status is obtained only when policies are not in conflict with the Constitution. With that in mind, this paper aims to show how not allowing homosexual marriage can amount to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. To accomplish this I will first examine the main arguments presented against the policy by the defenders of “traditional” marriage and show how they fail. With the main arguments undercut, opponents of gay marriage must have either no real basis for their position, or make their arguments from within specific comprehensive (generally religious) doctrines- a phenomenon widespread enough to possibly constitute a violation of the first amendment.

Thesis (Ed.M.)--Boston University

This thesis attempts to answer the following questions: (1) has Hugo Black abandoned his philosophy of the "absoluteness" of the First Amendment which has long been his basis of decision-making in problems involving the First Amendment, and (2) has he ceased to maintain his strong position for individual liberties?

Thesis advisor: Stephanie Greene / A Constitutional analysis of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 with respect to educational subsidies to religiously-affiliated universities; including a proposed framework for the adjudication of issues involving religion and the government. / Thesis (BS) — Boston College, 2009. / Submitted to: Boston College. Carroll School of Management. / Discipline: Carroll School of Management Honors Program. / Discipline: Business Law.

Thesis advisor: Dale Herbeck / The established standard for incitement articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) has developed into a staple of First Amendment law. The Brandenburg standard for incitement works in the real world, but questions have been raised about whether it can be extended into cyberspace. This thesis examines this question through an analysis of threatening web sites such as the Nuremberg Files, and accompanying jurisprudence. The ability of web sites to incite illegal action is undoubtedly compromised by the characteristics that differentiate them from the physical world—What is to be done when laws intended to encompass a much simpler form of expression lose their relevance? / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Communication Honors Program. / Discipline: Communication.

The purpose of this study was to identify and review the current legal boundaries of student speech and expression rights in public school, as developed and defined by the U.S. federal courts, to better enable educators to make informed decisions regarding student speech and expression when confronted with such situations. The study examined federal court student speech and expression decisions published between January 1, 1983 and December 31, 2008. Four Supreme Court decisions and numerous lower federal court decisions were reviewed and analyzed to identify the current legal boundaries of student speech and expression in school. The Supreme Court decisions in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Sch. Dist. (1969), Bethel Sch. Dist. v. Fraser (1986), Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988), and Morse v. Frederick (2007) were reviewed to identify the principles that express the Supreme Court's perspective of student speech and expression in school. The study then focused on the lower federal courts' interpretation and application of the Supreme Court's student speech and expression decisions to specific circumstances, and school leaders' utilization of these principles in making informed decisions regarding student speech and expression rights under the First Amendment. The study concluded that the current constitutional boundaries of student speech and expression rights in school were identified by applying the Supreme Court's student speech and expression principles to specific factual situations encountered by school leaders and addressed by the federal courts. The results of the study were condensed into a reference table that displays a spectrum of possible student speech and expression factual situations, identifies how the Supreme Court's student speech and expression principles may be applied to specific sets of facts, and provides educators with an instrument that may be used to assist in making informed decisions regarding student speech and expression in school.

The First Amendment gives U.S. citizens a Hohfeldian legal immunity that disables Congress from removing citizens’ legal liberty to criticize the government. Any attempt by Congress to remove this liberty would fail, but such an attempt would still wrong citizens. The familiar concept of claim-violation does not fully account for this wrong. Claims name actions that ought not be performed and are violated when those actions are performed. Immunities names actions that cannot be performed. Congress would wrong citizens not by doing something it ought not do but by attempting and failing to do something it cannot do. Using elements of Jean Hampton’s expressive theory of punishment, I analyze Congress’ attempt (and other similar acts) as an expressive act that denies the existence of immunities. Congress’ immunity-“contradiction” would wrong U.S. citizens by denying the value that generates the immunity, by causing damage to the acknowledgement of the citizens’ value, and by threatening the existence of the immunity.