Jack Daniel's Trademark in the U.S. Supreme Court

Jack Daniel's whisky manufacturers are not happy with a dog toy company that produced something called Bad Spaniels that, it says, infringes on their trademark with a similar name and shape. NPR's Nina Totenberg has the story here. 4 min., transcript available.

Social Media before the U.S. Supreme Court

Can online platforms be held liable for algorithmically recommending harmful third-party content to users? 

The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases this week that challenge the federal law regulating internet companies. Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act protects web platforms from liability for third-party content in basically the same way that telephone companies are protected. 

The first case, Gonzalez v. Google, argued February 21, was brought by the family of a young woman who was killed in the terrorist attacks in Paris in November 2015. Her family claims social media companies aided and abetted terrorism by recommending ISIS videos to those who might be interested in order to get more viewers and increase ad revenue. The second, Twitter v. Taamneh, argued February 22, was filed by the family of Nawras Alassaf, a Jordanian citizen who was killed in the January 2017 ISIS attack at the Reina nightclub in Istanbul. His family contends that Twitter and the other tech companies knew that their platforms played an important role in ISIS’s terrorism efforts but, despite extensive press coverage and government pressure, did not act aggressively to keep ISIS content off those platforms.

NPR's Nina Totenberg presents the legal questions here. 6 min. 55 sec.  transcript available.

Two Important U.S. Supreme Court Cases

On December 5th and 7th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard two cases that received widespread attention. NPR's Legal Affairs Correspondent Nina Totenberg presents them both. The first case concerned a web designer who didn't want to follow a Colorado anti-discrimination statute that would not allow her to refuse to create same-sex wedding sites under the theory that her designs were a form of speech and she shouldn't be forced to present a message with which she disagreed. 4 min. 38 sec.

The second involved election law and the legal status of a novel theory that only state legislatures, not state courts or governors, have the last say about elections. Former President Trump's supporters tried to use a form of this theory to overturn the 2020 election results. 4 min. 45 sec.

There is no transcript for either recording but available with both is a text which is almost a transcript.

 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan Interview

Justice Elena Kagan was interviewed September 19th at Salve Regina University (Rhone Island) - a college, not a law school, and spoke very directly about how the Court functions. Available here on C-Span.53 min. - not very perfect subtitles below the screen.

Student Free Speech Rights

A Pennsylvania cheerleader used very vulgar language on Snapchat to express her anger when she was not promoted to the varsity cheer team. She was disciplined for this by her high school. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such speech was protected by the First Amendment but added that schools do have the right to discipline out of school speech that is, for instance, harassing or bullying. NPR's Nina Totenberg has the story here. 3 min. 36 sec. transcript available.

Free Speech in France and the U.S.

The discussion "Free Speech in France and America" is another program presented in partnership with the Cultural Services of the French Embassy in the U.S. and the National Constitutional Center. Speakers at the event were Marc-Olivier Bherer from Le Monde, Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America and author of Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All; Geoffrey Stone of the University of Chicago Law School; and Hélène Tigroudja, law professor at Aix-Marseille University. About one hour long, no transcript. The link to the talk on the NCC site is here,  but if you watch on YouTube you can activate the subtitles.

Trump v. Facebook

On May 6th, The Daily, a New York Times podcast, examined the ruling by Facebook's 'Supreme Court' about the decision barring former president Trump from the platform. It can be found here. 25 min., transcript available.

Student Speech and the First Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court

A high school cheerleader, disappointed she was not chosen for the varsity cheerleading team, posted her feelings online with a picture and its caption "F*** school F*** softball, F*** cheer, F*** everything". She was punished by the school so she went to court invoking her First Amendment free speech right. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 28. NPR's Nina Totenberg has a report of the oral argument here. 4 min. 58 sec. transcript available.

U.S. Constitution in a Series of Short Videos

To learn about the U.S. constitutional system, you can go to the National Constitution Center's collection of 27 educational videos. They are are short (from 2 to 20 minutes) and have subtitles.

The History of Free Speech

BBC 4 has a series, The Invention of Free Speech, with three episodes:
free speech and
religion,
sex and
politics. 

28 min., no transcript.

U.S. Supreme Court Again Looking at Abortion Law

NPR’s All Things Considered interviewed an abortion provider about a Louisiana law restricting abortion clinics that was temporarily blocked by the Court. 3 min 56 sec, transcript available.

The same program’s examination of the fate of a Phoenix, Arizona law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and applys to housing, employment and other public accommodations — just as the law already did for categories like race, sex, marital status and religion can be found here. The argument against this law is that it is a form of compelled speech prohibited by the First Amendment. This dispute may end up before the Supreme Court. The Masterpiece Cakeshop case which the Court handed down last year did not actually turn on the question of compelled speech. 4 min, 43 sec, transcript available.

Free Speech

Chicago’s local TV station has interviewed Goeffrey Stone, a professor of law at the University of Chicago, about a book just published that he co-authored, The Free Speech Century. 10 min, no transcript.

More Cakes and Gay Rights

A baker in Northern Ireland refused to make a cake with the message "Support Gay Mariage" for a gay man and the UK Supreme Court has just ruled that the bakery has the right to do so. The announcement of the judgment of October 10, 2018 can be found here. 8 min 52 sec, no transcript. The Supreme Court website has a written summary of the judgment and links to videos of the court hearing oral arguments in May of this year. The BBC’s coverage of the case contains several short videos and a history of this legal battle.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case about a wedding cake for a gay mariage in June of this year. This blog's posts about the case before it was decided can be found here. Some reports of the June decision can be found here and here.

Armbands Against the Vietnam War - Today

Nina Totenberg on NPR's All Things Considered of January 3rd  reports on the reenactment of a 50 year old U.S. Supreme Court case, Tinker v. the Des Moines Independent Community School District.

Tinker was one of five students who in 1965 wore a black armband to school to protest the Vietnam War. She was suspended by school authorities. Four years later, the Supreme Court ruled by a 7 to 2 vote that the school authority was wrong to punish her action.
The re-enactment was part of a project to teach school children about the rule of law. 6 min, transcript available.

For an update on student free speech, see this post.

Wedding Cake and the U.S. Constitution

NPR’s Nina Totenberg has two reports about an important case argued this week before the U.S. Supreme Court which revolves around a wedding cake. A same-sex couple asked a baker to make a cake for their wedding and he refused, saying it was against his religious principles. The constitutional issue that brought the incident to the Court are the baker’s First Amendment free speech right vs. a Colorado anti-discrimination law. This case is important because of the effect that a decision in favor of the baker could have in other situations, so there were many hypothetical questions posed by the justices.
Totenberg’s report just before the argument can be found here. 6 min 31 sec, transcript available.
The second, just after the oral argument, can be found here. 5 min 58 sec, transcript available.
The name of the case is Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The recording of the oral arguments is now available on the Court's web site. The transcript is available here. You can find some in-depth discussion of the case here on the SCOTUSblog web site.

The Law Report in Winter

While the northern hemisphere was on holiday recently, in the southern hemisphere Australia was going full steam. Some interesting stories from the Australian program The Law Report include :

• a discussion of new German legislation about hate speech on social media
• the rule of law in China
• reflections on justice and injustice
• transgender and identity

About 30 min, transcripts available.

Free Speech, Hate Speech?

NPR’s Weekend Edition of August 26 has an interview with the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union about its defense of the white nationalist rally at Emancipation Park in Charlottesville. 4 min 30 sec, transcript available.

Free Speech in the Workplace - Google

The Google employee who questioned the suitability of women in high tech companies was fired. This report on NPR’s All Things Considered examines the legal questions this poses. 3 min 30 sec, transcript available.

The End of the U.S. Supreme Court OT 2016

The end of June means the end of the U.S. Supreme Court term which traditionally is when the decisions on hard cases, left to the last, are announced. This year, because the Court had only 8 justices for most of the term, not as many controversial cases were heard.

If you want to hear the results for the cases we have talked about in this blog --

You can find the decision in the Slants case  here  (previously presented here and here), The Court held the group could use the name the Slants.

You can find the answer to the question asked in Trinity Lutheran - can the state of Missouri refuse to help a Lutheran preschool rubberize its playground - here. No it can't.

You can hear the result of the shot across the border case here. The Court said it was wrong to grant the border patrol agent qualified immunity from suit and sent the case back to a lower court.

Another decision of interest is about a citizenship rule which distinguished between unmarried mothers and unmarried fathers who had to reside for much longer before being eligible to transmit their citizenship.

Coming up next term, with a full complement of justices, are cases about President Trump's travel ban,  whether a baker can refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and gerrymandering.

More on The Slants and Free Speech in the Supreme Court

NPR’s planet money has a story about the effort of a group called The Slants to obtain a trademark for their name. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to give its stamp of approval, saying it was disparaging to people of Asian descent.. The group, composed of Asian Americans, is invoking their right of free speech and their case will be decided soon by the Supreme Court. 2O min, transcript available.