The First and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution guarantee that an individual’s freedom of speech will not be abridged by either the national or state governments. In addition, federal statutes and judicial decisions have applied this constitutional protection to speech curtailed by private parties who through their ownership of certain properties act in a quasi-public capacity. In these latter cases, not only must a court define which communicative acts exercised at which times and in which places enjoy the protection of the first amendment, but it must also resolve the seeming conflict between the guarantee of free speech and the guarantee protecting private ownership of property.
This clash of the right of free speech and the right of private property has arisen in many varied contexts, e.g. company towns, migrant camps, railroad stations and supermarket sidewalks. One situation which has provoked considerable litigation is that of picketing and handbilling in privately owned shopping centers. In Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner the Supreme Court considered the issue of first amendment rights in such a context and struck a balance in favor of property rights.
Federal employment law should expand beyond the group-based protections established in Title VII to protect and promote an employee’s authentic self in the workplace.
Reviews book about distinguishing what kind of speech is considered free speech as laid out in the First Amendment.
Connick upsets longstanding jurisprudence related to the free speech rights of employees in the workplace by giving employers considerable regulatory discretion
Experts discuss legal developments and related ramifications one year after President Trump declared a national emergency at the U.S. Southern Border with Mexico in order to build a wall.