First Amendment Law Prof Blog

Copyright and the First Amendment

How Much Can the Government Revise Copyright, Without Running Afoul of the First Amendment and the Copyright Clause?

Findlaw news commentator Julie Hilden discusses the 9th Circuit decision in Kahle v. Gonzales in the first of a two part series on Copyright and the First Amendment.  Kahle involves provisions of the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act and Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 that automatically copyrighted a work before the creator executed a formal "creative commons" license.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

Court allows station to broadcast story

From the Boston Globe

A struggle between the First Amendment and privacy rights of two Boston firefighters killed in the line of duty ended yesterday with a court allowing a Boston television station to broadcast its story, 24 hours after its competitors had already done so.

Shortly before 5 p.m., Appeals Court Judge Andrew Grainger dissolved an injunction that had barred WHDH-TV from broadcasting a story Wednesday about autopsy findings that showed two firefighters had alcohol or illegal drugs in their systems when they died fighting a fire Aug. 29 in a West Roxbury restaurant.

Grainger's two-sentence order did not explain his reasons for the ruling, but during oral arguments he indicated that publication of the information by other news outlets made the ban on Channel 7 moot. . . .

On Wednesday, [Paul Hynes, lawyer for the Boston firefighters union,] and the union convinced Superior Court Judge Merita Hopkins the station violated state law preventing disclosure of autopsy reports when it obtained the information about the firefighters. . . . In its Wednesday night broadcasts, Channel 7 complied with the judge's order while other Boston media outlets, including the Boston Globe, reported the autopsy findings.

Michael T. Gass, the station's lawyer, contended on the station's behalf that Hopkins's order was an unconstitutional prior restraint on the station's exercise of its First Amendment rights to free speech. . . .

WHDH-TV's memo appealing initial injunction

-Kathleen A. Bergin

Ruling: Idaho can't stop unions from political payroll deductions

JOHN MILLER for the AP:

BOISE, Idaho -- A federal appeals court on Friday ruled unconstitutional an Idaho law that forbids payroll deductions by teachers, firefighters and other local government employees to pay for political activities by their unions.

The law was passed in 2003 by the Legislature over the objection of the Idaho Education Association teachers union, which called it a mean-spirited attempt to silence labor organizations. The IEA sued, prompting a federal judge to issue an injunction almost immediately against enforcing the law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel in San Francisco affirmed a ruling by U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill that the 2003 law violates First Amendment protections of free speech. It hampers the ability of teachers and their unions to conduct First Amendment-protected political activities by making it tougher to collect money to do so, the judges agreed.

See Pocatello Education v. Heidman

- Kathleen A. Bergin

Sixth Circuit: 1A protects campaign statements made by public employee-candidate

Murphy v. Cockrell, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 2873241 (C.A.6 (Ky.))

The Sixth Circuit held that although government employees have no protected right to run for political office and thus may be terminated upon becoming a candidate, the First Amendment does protect political speech made by a public employee-candidate during a campaign.

Brenda Murphy worked as a deputy property value administrator in Montgomery County, Kentucky. She was nominated by the Democratic Party to run against Republican Linda Cockrell in an election for Property Value Administrator. Cockrell and Murphy also worked together in the PVA office. Cockrell won the election and fired Murphy two days later. Cockrell acknowledged in deposition that Murphy was not fired because she decided to run for office, but because of the "manner in which she campaigned," including comments challenging Cockrell’s experience and party loyalty.

The court reversed a grant of summary judgment favoring Cockrell, holding that Murphy's claim was allowed to proceed for analysis under the Pickering balancing test because the First Amendment protects a candidate-employee who is discharged for speech made during a political campaign.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

Global Free Speech Issues - Turkey

From the New York Times:

Turkey’s President Seeks to Change Law That Criminalizes Insults to Turkish Identity

Turkey’s new president on Wednesday called for changes to a law that makes it a crime to insult Turkish identity — legislation that the European Union wants Turkey to rescind.

Among those who have been prosecuted under the law have been the Nobel-Price winning author Orhan Pamuk and the ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, who was killed in January by a 17-year-old boy. . . .

"We know there are problems with regard to Article 301," President Abdullah Gul told reporters on Wednesday at the Council of Europe here. "There’s still room for improvement, and there are changes to be enacted in the period ahead."

Mr. Gul has said the law damages Turkey’s image by portraying it as a country where intellectuals are jailed for speaking their mind. On Wednesday, he said that it was an "unfair perception" that people were imprisoned because of the law. "No one is going to prison for expressing their view freely," he told representatives to the council. . . . Mr. Gul gave no time frame for changes to the law but said the government was committed to improving its human rights record. . . .

-Kathleen A. Bergin

Court Refuses Case of Teacher Dismissed After Anti-War Remarks

Mark Walsh for Education Week:

The U.S. Supreme Court declined last week to hear the appeal of a former Indiana teacher who alleged that she lost her job because she had discussed the Iraq war in her classroom. The case was notable because it led to a fairly broad ruling by a federal appeals court that teachers have virtually no First Amendment protection for statements made in the classroom, even on a topic of such public importance as the war. . . .

According to court papers, the magazine reported on a peace march in Washington to protest the prospect of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Ms. Mayer was asked by a student in her multiage classroom of 3rd through 6th graders if she would ever participate in such a peace demonstration. She told them that when she had driven by recent peace marches in Bloomington, Ind., related to the Iraq situation, she had honked her horn in response to a sign that said, "Honk for Peace."

"And then I went on to say that I thought it was important for people to seek out peaceful solutions to problems before going to war, and that we train kids to be mediators on the playground so that they can seek out peaceful solutions to their own problems," Ms. Mayer said in a deposition in the case.

Some parents complained to the principal about the brief discussion, and the principal barred Ms. Mayer from discussing "peace" in her classroom, according to court papers. The principal also canceled the school’s traditional "peace month." . . .

The school district decided in April 2003 not to renew Ms. Mayer’s contract for the next school year. The teacher alleged that it was because of her comments on Iraq, and she sued the district on First Amendment and related grounds. . . .

A U.S. District Court judge in Indianapolis granted summary judgment last year to the school district. In a Jan. 24 ruling, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, in Chicago, ruled unanimously for the district as well.

"The First Amendment does not entitle primary and secondary teachers, when conducting the education of captive audiences, to cover topics, or advocate viewpoints, that depart from the curriculum adopted by the school system," the appeals court said.

The 7th Circuit judges held that Ms. Mayer’s comments were the type of on-the-job speech by a public employee that merited no First Amendment protection under a 2006 Supreme Court decision known as Garcetti v.Ceballos.

Note: Garcetti v. Ceballos held that the First Amendment protects a government employee who speaks on a matter of public concern "as a citizen," but not an employee who makes statements pursuant to an official job duty. Ceballos was a deputy district attorney who concluded in a memo to supervisors and later testified in court that an affidavit police used to obtain a critical search warrant contained important misrepresentations. Ceballos was subsequently discharged and brought a First Amendment action against his employer. The S.Ct. upheld Ceballos' discharge, concluding that a prosecutor is not speaking "as a citizen" for purposes of the First Amendment when making official, on-the-job comments about the sufficiency of a warrant.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

More on Speech by Public Officials

From the NY Times:

Arkansas: Judge Allowed to Speak Out

A state appeals court judge has a First Amendment right to speak out against the war in Iraq and the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission ruled last week. The judge, Wendell L. Griffen, had been charged with damaging public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making a series of public comments that included criticism of politicians and federal judges. The commission ruled that the judge has the constitutional right to discuss “disputed political or legal issues” off the bench.

-Kathleen A. Bergin

Oral Argument in New York State Board of Elections v. Lopez Torres, 06-766.

Full transcript of oral arguments:

AP summary:

[New York’s] unique system has primary voters elect delegates to a convention that then chooses candidates who most often run unopposed in the general election. . . .

Two federal courts had struck down the system, saying judgeship candidates who lack support from the party leaders are excluded from elections by an onerous process that violates their First Amendment rights. . . . The justices did not appear bothered by the lack of competition or voter participation in the arcane nominating system.

"It's a basic judgment not to have judges popularly elected," conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said.

Justice David Souter, a liberal, said he did not see a constitutional problem in the ability of party bosses effectively to exclude some candidates. "For political reasons, they're saying, 'We don't like you,'" Souter said.

The court previously has ruled that states can decide whether to use conventions or primaries to nominate candidates. States also can choose to have judges appointed rather than elected.

"Well, doesn't that seem kind of odd, that if a state can have no role for voters, it can have a pure convention, that they're penalized if they have some role for voters?" Chief Justice John Roberts said. . . .

The state Legislature adopted the nominating conventions 86 years ago. Lawmakers scrapped direct primaries for New York's Supreme Court justices because of the potentially corrupting influence of having prospective judges raising campaign money. Other judges in New York are elected through primaries.

The plaintiffs have said the current system leads to cozy relationships among judges, lawyers and politicians. A decision is expected by June.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

Fed Court Strikes Part of Ohio Statute Regulating Internet Porn

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland is the second challenge to an Ohio statute that seeks to regulate the transmission of sexually explicit material to minors.  The case involves amendments enacted by the General Assembly after portions of the original statute were ruled unconstitutional in 2002. 

Judge Walther Rice of the S.D. of Ohio rejected the plaintiffs' claim that the definition of "material harmful to minors" was overbroad because it relied on a "community standard."  He nonetheless agreed with their contention that provisions of the statute regulating the dissemination of material over the internet unconstitutionally restricts protected speech between adults.

Summary at The Thomas Jefferson Center

- Kathleen A. Bergin

More voting cases

In Virginia via First Amendment Center:

4th Circuit strikes down part of Va. open-primary law

The 4th Circuit ruled unanimously in Miller v. Brown that open primaries are constitutional when freely chosen by a political party because state law also provides the option of closing the nominating process by holding conventions or canvasses, known as "firehouse primaries."

But when an elected state official seeking another term uses the law to force his party to open the nomination to every voter through a primary, it violates the party's First Amendment's right of free association, the ruling said. . . .

The law came under fire from GOP conservatives in 1996 when U.S. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va., used his prerogative to choose a primary in a nomination challenge from former Reagan administration budget aide James Miller. The party's right wing, furious that Warner had spurned Iran-Contra figure Oliver L. North as the GOP's 1994 Senate nominee, had hoped to defeat Warner in a state convention. Warner defeated Miller in the primary, and Republicans claimed that Democrats intruded to help the popular, centrist senator. . . .

Attorney General Bob McDonnell, whose office argued in support of the state law, has not decided whether to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, said David Clementson, a spokesman for McDonnell

_________________________

In Arizona via AP:

Judge rules independents can't vote in Libertarian Party primary

Independent voters will be barred from casting ballots in the Libertarian Party primary under a ruling issued by a Tucson federal court judge this week, a case that could eventually affect the statewide open primary system.

Arizona opened its primary elections in 2002, allowing independent voters and those belonging to parties not on the ballot to chose a party at the polls. The number of registered independents and unaffiliated voters in the state has since doubled, to about 28 percent.

The ruling issued Thursday by U.S. District Judge Raner C. Collins came in a case filed by the Libertarian Party, which argued that the law threatened their right to free association.

Arizona Libertarian Party v. Brewer

More at First Amendment Center

- Kathleen Bergin

Commercial Speech Cases in the News

Matt Stiles in Texas writes:

A federal judge [blocked] the city from enforcing its 27-year-old sign code, ruling the regulations could violate free speech protections in the First Amendment. . . .

The city code, which covers most signs, prohibits new billboards in Houston or the outer ring. But it allows those with political, religious or other noncommercial messages. . . .

"Noncommercial billboards are visual blights, traffic dangers and undesirable for property values for the same reason as commercial billboards," the opinion states. . . . The ordinance has been successfully defended for years under the argument that the city was protecting aesthetics and property values while ensuring traffic safety, the city's lawyers said.

But the court agreed to stop any citations pending a full hearing on the merits of RTM's arguments, deciding that the potential damage to the company and its advertisers was more important than Houston's need to enforce the ordinance.

_________________________

Andrew Clevenger in West Virginia writes:

Chief U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin enjoins West Virginia Lottery Commission from enforcing an advertising ban on certain words and images.

The Limited Video Lottery Act of 2004 barred almost 200 names and words from advertising by operators of venues with the gambling machines,[incluidng] “chance,” “bingo,” “blackjack,” “money,” “dollar,” “diamond,” “cards” and “ace.” Words that evoked association with well-known casinos, like the MGM, Tropicana and Treasure Island, were also prohibited, as were the names of gambling destinations such as Las Vegas, Atlantic City and Reno. . . .

Goodwin’s opinion rejected the state’s claim that the banned words could prove misleading to would-be gamblers. Under the law legalizing the machines, parlors and clubs could not use the words “video lottery” in the name of the location, directions to the location or in advertising visible from the outside of the site.

“I fail to see how the phrase ‘video lottery’ is inherently misleading in an advertisement for an establishment that legally offers video lottery,” Goodwin wrote. . . .

In addition, the advertising restrictions probably would not do much to slow the proliferation of gambling when West Virginia allows advertising for other forms of gambling, the judge wrote. He wrote that if the state really wants to stop the spread of gambling, it can do so in ways that do not restrict free speech, such as increasing licensing fees, reducing the number of video terminals at one site or restricting the number of bids for new terminals.

W. Va. Ass'n of Club Owners & Fraternal Services, Inc. v. Musgrave

Oral Arguments in Washington State Grange

The Supreme Court yesterday heard consolidated arguments in Washington State Grange v. Washington Republican Party, 06-713, and State of Washington v. Washington Republican Party.  The cases represent a challenge to Washington's primary system that would allow voters to choose any candidate on the ballot regardless of political affiliation.

Full transcript of oral argument.

Summary via the AP:

Several justices yesterday appeared wary of the voter-approved law, which has been struck down by a federal judge and a federal appeals court.

The law would allow candidates to associate themselves with a party but would not allow the parties to reject a candidate they oppose, said Justice Antonin Scalia. "That seems to me a great disadvantage to the parties," Scalia said. . . .

Chief Justice John Roberts compared the case to a trademark dispute. The two major parties are trying to protect their "brand" to ensure that only those who agree with the party's principles are identified with that party, he said. Under the law as approved, "people will be confused," Roberts said. Candidates might "look like Republicans but aren't."

Justice David Souter said candidates were unlikely to identify themselves with a party unless they agree broadly with its principles.

John White, arguing the case for Republicans, disagreed. In recent history, David Duke has identified himself as a Republican, despite GOP repudiation of his racial views, while perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche has called himself a Democrat, despite wide disagreement with Democratic leaders. . . .

- Kathleen A. Bergin

Monetary Damages Available Under RLUIPA, 11 Cir. Says

Smith v. Allen, ---- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 2826759 (C.A.11 (Ala.))

The 11Circuit yesterday rejected a claim that correction officials violated a prison inmate’s rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"),  by declining his request to possess items and engage in activities related to the practice of Odinism. Had Smith established a RLUIPA violation, however, he might have been entitled to monetary damages under RLUIPA’s remedies section, the court said.

The 11 Cir. thus joins district courts in Illinois and California that read RLUIPA as authorizing monetary damages in some circumstances. District courts in Colorado and Georgia have concluded otherwise.  In Alabama, Texas and Wisconsin, courts have assumed that monetary damages are available without in fact deciding the question.

The decision is the latest judicial response to federal legislation involving religious practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court held that incidental burdens caused by laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Congress responded by enacting the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act of 1993, or RFRA, which required a "compelling" justification for such laws. RFRA was passed under Congress’s enforcement power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment and applied to any federal or state law that burdened religion. The Supreme Court later invalidated RFRA as applied to the states in City of Boerne v. Flores, because the statute exceeded Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather than properly enforce the substantive provisions of the First Amendment, the Court held, RFRA improperly expanded the scope of constitutional protection by prohibiting laws that would not otherwise violate the First Amendment.

Congress enacted RLUIPA in response to City of Boerne.  The statute is narrower than RFRA because it applies only to land use and the religious exercises of institutionalized persons.  It was also enacted pursuant to Congress broader powers under the spending and commerce clauses.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

The War and Political Protest in Iowa

McCabe v. Macaulay, --- F.Supp.2d ----, 2007 WL 2572407 (N.D. Iowa, 2007).

Political protesters, arrested and subject to a full cavity search following a 2004 election rally, can proceed with their First Amendment claim against the Secret Service officer who ordered their arrest. Chief Judge Linda Reade of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa declined to grant the agent’s motion for summary judgment against the protesters who attended the rally to express their opposition to the war in Iraq.

The agent maintained that the protesters refused to move away from a sidewalk in a designated security area; however, the protesters offered photographs, video tapes and testimony from third party witnesses to show that officers singled out peaceful anti-Bush protesters for arrest, but not pro-Bush supporters within the same vicinity. One of the protesters wore a "Kerry-Edwards" button, and another carried an 8.5" by 11" sign that read "Bad War No More" that included a "W" with a slash through it. Upon arrest, the protesters were transported to a county jail, strip searched, and subject to a full body cavity inspection.

Judge Reade held that the evidence could lead a reasonable jury to find that the protesters were arrested because of the content of their speech. The judge thus denied summary judgment on the First Amendment claim, but dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim against the agent because he was not involved in the subsequent search or inspection conducted by county officers after the arrest.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

The War and Political Protest in Arizona

Frazier v. Boomsma, Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2808559 (D.Ariz.).

Federal district judge Neil Wake issued a temporary injunction on Thursday against an Arizona law that prohibits anyone from using the name or image of a soldier without first obtaining permission from the family.  The suit was brought by a resident of Flagstaff who sells T-shirts listing the names of slain servicemembers with the words "Bush Lied - They Died."  Wake ruled that the statute effectively imposed a flat ban on "core political speech" that did not serve the states interest in protecting personal privacy or preventing misleading advertising.  Nor was the statute narrowly tailored to protect the interests of grieving families. 

The case could have ramifications for similar laws passed in Florida, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas, and the STOP Act being debated in Congress.

More from The ACLU of Arizona and the AP.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

High court won't review N.Y. law mandating birth-control coverage

Via the AP at Findlaw.com:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court [on Monday] declined to enter a church-state dispute over whether some religious organizations can be forced to pay for workers' birth-control health insurance benefits, a growing trend in the states.

The Court let stand a New York court ruling upholding a state law that forces religious-based social service agencies to subsidize contraceptives as part of prescription drug coverage they offer employees.

New York is one of 23 states that require employers which offer prescription benefits to employees to cover birth-control pills as well, the groups say. The state enacted the Women's Health and Wellness Act in 2002 to require health plans to cover contraception and other services aimed at women, including mammography, cervical cancer screenings and bone-density exams.

Catholic Charities and other religious groups argued New York's law violates their First Amendment right to practice their religion because it forces them to violate religious teachings that regard contraception as sinful.

Summary of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Dinallo at SCOTUS Blog.com

- Kathleen A. Bergin

War, Defamation and the 1A

Via Forbes.com:

Murtha Must Testify in Defamation Case

A federal judge refused Friday to dismiss a defamation case against Rep. John P. Murtha and ordered the Pennsylvania Democrat to give a sworn deposition about his comments alleging "cold-blooded murder and war crimes" by unnamed soldiers in connection with Iraqi civilian deaths.

A Marine Corps sergeant is suing the 18-term congressman for making the charge, which the soldier claims is false. Murtha, who opposes the Iraq war, made the comment during a May, 2006 Capitol Hill news conference in which he predicted that a Pentagon war crimes investigation will show Marines killed dozens of innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005.

Background from Jurist and the Washington Post

Access the Complaint in Wuterich v. Murtha. 

- Kathleen A. Bergin

First Monday - SCOTUS First Amendment Docket

The Supreme Court begins its 2007 term today with four First Amendment cases on the docket.

1.  Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, #06-713

Argument: Oct. 1, 2007

Lower Court: 9^th Cir., 1A claim sustained

Note: Washington v. Washington State Republican Party is the companion case.

• Issue: Whether the First Amendment prohibits top-two election systems that allow a candidate to disclose on the ballot the name of the party he or she personally prefers?

2. New York Board of Elections v. Torres, # 06-766

Argument: Oct. 3, 2007

Lower Court: 2^nd Cir., 1A claim sustained

• Issue: What is the appropriate scope of First Amendment rights of voters and candidates within the arena of intraparty competition, and particularly where the State has chosen a party convention instead of a primary as the nominating process?

3.  U.S. V. Williams, #06-694

Argument: Oct. 30, 2007

Lower Court: 11^th Cir., 1A claim sustained

• Issue: The PROTECT ACT prohibits "knowingly advertis[ing], promot[ing], present[ing], distribut[ing], or solicit[ing] any material or purported material in a manner that reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe, that the material or purported material is illegal child pornography." Whether that section of the Act is overly broad and impermissibly vague, and thus facially unconstitutional?

4.  Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, #07-21

Argument: TBD.

Lower Court: 7^th Cir., 1A claim denied

Note: Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita is the companion case.

• Issue: Whether an Indiana statute mandating that those seeking to vote in-person produce a government-issued photo identification violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution?

- Kathleen A. Bergin

Banned Books Week

Read a banned book lately?

The American Library Association kicks off Banned Book Week Sept. 29 - Oct. 6, 2007.

From the ALA:

"Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell’s award-winning "And Tango Makes Three," about two male penguins parenting an egg from a mixed-sex penguin couple, tops the list of most challenged books in 2006 by parents and administrators, due to the issues of homosexuality.

The list also features two books by author Toni Morrison. "The Bluest Eye" and "Beloved" are on the list due to sexual content and offensive language.

* * *

The "10 Most Challenged Books of 2006" reflect a range of themes, and consist of the following titles:

"And Tango Makes Three" by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell, for homosexuality, anti-family, and unsuited to age group;

"Gossip Girls" series by Cecily Von Ziegesar for homosexuality, sexual content, drugs, unsuited to age group, and offensive language;

"Alice" series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor for sexual content and offensive language;

"The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things" by Carolyn Mackler for sexual content, anti-family, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;

"The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison for sexual content, offensive language, and unsuited to age group;

"Scary Stories" series by Alvin Schwartz for occult/Satanism, unsuited to age group, violence, and insensitivity;

"Athletic Shorts" by Chris Crutcher for homosexuality and offensive language.

"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky for homosexuality, sexually explicit, offensive language, and unsuited to age group

"Beloved" by Toni Morrison for offensive language, sexual content, and unsuited to age group;

"The Chocolate War" by Robert Cormier for sexual content, offensive language, and violence.

Off the list this year, but on for several years past, are the "Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain."

Banned Books week began in 1982 and is celebrated the last week of September.

- Kathleen A. Bergin

New Survey Finds First Amendment Still Being Left Behind

At PNNOnline:

Three years after a groundbreaking survey of high school students showed that nearly three-fourths of them don’t know how they feel about the First Amendment or take it for granted, not much has changed.

This year’s "Future of the First Amendment" follow-up survey, commissioned by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation and done by the University of Connecticut’s David Yalof and Ken Dautrich, revealed these key findings:

Despite increases in the number of First Amendment classes from 2004 through 2006, nearly three-fourths of students still don’t know how they feel about the First Amendment, or take it for granted.

Only a small group of teachers and parents say that their school has made "a lot" of effort to promote First Amendment principles through school activities, conversations and policies.

Students support individual free expression rights that directly affect or interest them; they’re less supportive of rights that are less relevant to their lives.

* * *

Access the full survey at Future of the First Amendment

Teach First Amendment provides access to free First Amendment lesson plans, including those designed by the Bill of Rights Institute and the National Constitution Center.  Though primarily aimed at high school students, law profs, especially those teaching First Amendment for the first time, may find these resources helpful.

- Kathleen A. Bergin