Much attention has recently been given to K-12 educators and their use of social media. This quantitative study surveyed a targeted sample (n = 543) of known social media users to learn about K-12 educators’ use of social media, their legal knowledge of the First Amendment as it relates to free speech and education, and their dispositions toward the First Amendment. Survey respondents self-reported levels of social media use, completed a legal knowledge section, and responded to a series of items used to gauge their disposition toward the First Amendment. These were analyzed through various demographic and contextual factors in addition to analyses of variance, correlations, and a regression analysis. Findings identified a critical mass of K-12 educators are using social media, and some use social media to a great degree. This sample also reported an overall lack of legal knowledge of the First Amendment as it relates to free speech and education. Additionally, whether or not one had been questioned or chastised about his or her social media use, whether or not one worked for an administration that was “extremely supportive” of social media use, whether or not one had administrative responsibilities, and one’s disposition toward the First Amendment were significant predictors of social media use for the educators in this sample. Findings in this study suggest schools should train and use administrators to educate their K-12 employees about social media use, the First Amendment, and related school policies. Additionally, school policies should not focus on social media use; instead, they should address particular behaviors. Finally, schools intending to embrace social media should seek to employ administrators who are “extremely supportive” of social media use.

As the title suggests, this thesis is about the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and about development of its interpretation from its inception to present day. Over the years, the interpretation of the First Amendment has drastically changed, causing a shift from restrictive views on free expression towards almost absolute freedom. Today, freedom of expression and religious freedom, both of which are included in the First Amendment, play a significant role in preserving democracy while strengthening its core pillars not only in the United States, but in other modern nations as well. The inclusion of the First Amendment into the world's oldest written constitution has influenced the concept of free expression and religious freedom in the laws of many foreign countries. According to some scholars, the current level of constitutional protection guaranteed for free expression in United States is too high and does not correlate with what the framers of the constitution had intended on upon drafting the First Amendment. However, it comes as no surprise that higher standards of protection from governmental intervention regarding guaranteed freedom in the First Amendment consequently results in the betterment of society. Throughout the text, I will aim to answer every major question...

in English The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the development of its interpretation The aim of the paper is to analyze the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The main reason for my research is my long-term personal interests in the fields of law which are covered by the First Amendment. The thesis is composed of an introduction, six chapters and a conclusion. The study begins with the introduction where it is discussed methodology, my motives for choosing this topic, importance of the topic and potential contribution of this thesis to the Czech legal science. Chapter One examines historical roots of the First Amendment's rights and freedoms. It focuses on their development both in the England and in its American colonies. It tries to find main tendencies contributing to reasons for adopting rights and freedoms embodied in the First Amendment. Chapter Two concentrates on the main political and legal events involving adopting the First Amendment, and then it attempts to find a proper interpretation of the First Amendment using both historical and teleological approach. The second chapter also discusses the scope of the First Amendment. The chapter ends with the examination how external factors (such as legal philosophy or politics) influenced the decision making...

Thesis advisor: Dale Herbeck / Websites counseling dangerous activity such as suicide represent uncharted legal territory. To date, most legal scholarship regarding these sites considers whether they incite imminent lawless action. As an alternative to incitement, this paper argues that these websites are more productively characterized as instruction manuals that aid and abet unlawful activity. In support of this approach, this paper proposes a three-tiered legal test for distinguishing between protected and unprotected instruction manuals under the First Amendment. / Thesis (BA) — Boston College, 2010. / Submitted to: Boston College. College of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Communication Honors Program. / Discipline: Communication.

Abstract is available to download.

The aim of this thesis is to explore the differences and similarities between Justice Antonin Scalia’s textualist approach to interpreting the Constitution and Justice Stephen Breyer’s Living Constitution approach (also called the evolutionist approach) by applying these disparate legal theories to Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association, a case currently pending before the Supreme Court whose resolution centers on the interpretation of the First Amendment. The textualist approach relies primarily on interpreting the original meaning of the text of the Constitution, and attempting to decide cases in a way that is faithful to an amendment’s words as written (Rossum et al. 4). The Living Constitution, or evolutionist approach to constitutional interpretation, contends that the meaning of the Constitution evolves with the standards of society, and the purpose or intent behind the Constitution or an amendment is as important, if not more so, than the literal language when interpreting a Constitutional amendment as it applies to actual cases as they arise (8). These two approaches are fundamentally oppositional, and Justices Scalia and Breyer are the very embodiment of these approaches on the Supreme Court today; each man avidly defends his respective approach in his opinions and other written works, and each exhibits the logic of these approaches in his decisions. The purpose of choosing a case that is undecided (at the time of this writing) is to explore and flesh out the actual decision-making process of both Justices and their constitutional theories, rather than merely critiquing their decisions and holdings in a case that has already been adjudicated. This exploration is particularly useful because it allows one to decipher how these approaches are similar and different in interpreting the Constitution.

The purpose of this study is to examine the status of academic freedom and, more specifically, intramural and extramural speech at universities in the U.S. since 2000. Court opinions and briefs from benchmark court cases and the faculty's perspective of current academic freedom issues are analyzed to determine dominant trends and themes that have evolved since 2000. While others have studied the relationship between the First Amendment and academic freedom, this analysis brings current the discourse concerning the effect First Amendment court decisions have on the faculty speech. The central research question is to determine the effect court decisions have on the intramural and extramural speech of faculty and specifically to study how federal, state, and local events since 2000 have affected (a) the academic freedom of faculty in general, (b) the way universities handle faculty intramural speech, (c) the way universities handle faculty extramural speech when they speak both as a citizen and a public university employee, and (d) the ability of faculty to defend their academic freedom. Using post-modern theory, the two-phased mixed methods study deconstructs and analyzes (a) the six First Amendment court opinions and briefs and (b) the 19 interviews of public university faculty members. The first phase identified 11 dominant themes, which were used as the basis for the coding and the 19 interviews of public university faculty members. The interview coding and analysis identified 15 themes. Based on the Pearson Correlation Coefficient, four themes were identified in the court opinions and six in the interviews are discussed. The second phase also included surveys of the faculty interviewed and a quantitative analysis of the responses in order to classify the sample. The study found that public universities have complete control over academic freedom, and that it is a privilege granted to faculty based on their scholarly association with the university, not a right. Public university administrators, general counsels, deans, department chairs, and faculty will benefit from the study as it provides an intensive analysis of post-2000 court case logic and the current perceptions and apprehensions that faculty have concerning their intramural and extramural speech rights. / text

This dissertation offers a novel argument for the democratic importance of political parties and campaign finance. Taking issue with the United States Supreme Court's campaign finance and political party jurisprudence, which tends to value campaign spending and party activity for the role that they play in expanding voter choice, my account seeks, instead, to emphasize the role that these forms of political participation can play in countering the sense of political disenchantment which characterizes the political attitudes of a large number of American citizens today. I argue in this project that by subjecting their preferences to continuous contestation and challenge, parties and campaign finance can help instill an appreciation for compromise, as well as tolerance for political diversity and disagreement, among the disenchanted. This, in turn, has many beneficial implications for enabling good governance on the part of the American state. In the course of the dissertation, I also specify the many ways in which contemporary parties and campaign finance regimes need to be reformed in order for them to be able to perform this role. Questions of institutional design thus occupy an extremely prominent place in the project. / Government

From colonies to nation, this work identifies and emphasizes the influence of interdependent communal relationships on the ascent of the charter school movement. These ideals were made manifest in colonial social covenants that were then compromised by the conformist republican mandate of the common school. These ideals were recovered incrementally as education was affected by broader historical forces, most notably the implementation of court-sanctioned racial apartheid during the Plessy era, the reaction to the underwhelming impact of Brown, and, beginning in the 1980s, the rise of legislation that prepared the way for charter schools. Moreover, this work challenges the assumption that charter schools have proven popular with American citizens due solely to promises of superior academic results. Alternatively, this work suggests that charter schools have prospered because they have challenged the state monopoly in K-12 education, and have thus returned balance to the dynamic between the individual and the state. Finally, this work troubles the idea that charter schools are balkanizing American education, suggesting that the right of citizens to form charter schools, in an effort to sustain unique communities, justifies and is in fact endorsed by the American metanarrative. Research on American charter schools lacks a coherent historical framework. This work provides the charter school movement with an historical narrative that argues for the movement’s legitimacy based on its consistency with the American Republic’s founding philosophy. / Graduate / 0323 / 0337 / 0520 / smg32@duke.edu

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether there is an absolute right to freedom of expression with regard to hate speech, and more specifically, whether tolerance should be exercised toward speech even in circumstances where this speech presents a clear and present danger to the public. The author will use legal research methods to analyze this question. The paper will delve into four major Supreme Court cases in the case of hate speech, as well as the decision by the Virginia Court that allowed the rally in Charlottesville which ended with the death of 32-year old woman. The aim is to determine how the Supreme Court has looked at hateful expression over the years and the status of hate speech in America today. The four major cases are Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977), R.A.V v. City of St. Paul (1992), and Virginia v. Black (2003). Although the case of Kessler v. Charlottesville (2017) is not a Supreme Court case, its significance in relation to the right to freedom of expression is no less than those precedent four cases. This incident and related legal cases bring the concerns about hate speech and the constitutional right to freedom of expression directly into the public discourse.