Democracy, Sex and the First Amendment
Introduction
Is the Supreme Court’s obscenity doctrine-which permits government to ban hardcore pornography-a mere relic of the Victorian era, drained of all vitality by the momentous changes in First Amendment jurisprudence over the last forty years, and maintained on life support only by the prudishness of hidebound justices? Or, notwithstanding the vituperative criticism leveled at it by commentators and dissenting justices, is this doctrine in fact consistent with the basic principles that animate the Court’s contemporary free speech jurisprudence?
Suggested Reading
#SayHerName: Racial Profiling and Police Violence Against Black Women
Andrea J. Ritchie{{Andrea J. Ritchie is a civil rights attorney who has led groundbreaking research, litigation, and advocacy efforts to challenge profiling, policing, and physical and sexual violence by law enforcement against women, girls and LGBTQ people of color for
My Twenty-Twos: Mentoring the Young Men Emerging Community
The kid’s name was Lil’ Yo—well, that’s what all his little buddies called him—and immediately his presence snagged my attention.
Conservative Progressivism in Immigrant Habeas Court: Why Boumediene v. Bush is the Baseline Constitutional Minimum
Ever since Boumediene was decided federal judges have not applied the full force of all six of Boumediene’s holdings to immigrant habeas cases, and as a direct result immigration advocates lost their most important cases to date.
Labor Law and the NLRB: Friend or Foe to Labor and Non-Union Workers?
Wilma B. Liebman{{Former Member and Chairman, National Labor Relations Board, 1997-2011; visiting distinguished scholar Rutgers University School of Management and Labor Relations 2015-17; adjunct faculty, NYU Law School, spring 2015 and 2016. This article is based on remarks at the