free speech — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Factory Farms v.s. Whistleblowers: Agricultural Gag Laws that Hide Animal Cruelty

Upon opening Iowa Select Farms’ main website, viewers are greeted by a heartwarming image of light shining through a cornstock field, with the words “Producing Pork Responsibly” centered in an elegant font atop the greenery. [1] When the rare curious consumer scrolls down, Iowa Select Farms assures them, “We believe in doing the right thing every day, operating with character and integrity and being stewards of our resources.” However, like other U.S. factory farms, their definition of “character and integrity” is vastly different from that of those reading their mission statement. To Iowa Select Farms, “Producing Pork Responsibly” means sanctioned tail cuttings, castrations without anesthesia, and smashing piglets against concrete floors. [2] Meatpacking in the U.S. accounted for $1.02 trillion in economic output and generated $256 billion in wages in 2016. [3] Further, due to the cultural fixation on and societal expectation of a meat-eating diet, the U.S. has developed a heavy reliance on factory farms, with an approximated 99% of livestock living at factory farms. [4]

Nicole BuiciucOctober 4, 2022first amendment, animal rights, free speech, whistleblowers, factory farms

Confederate Monuments as Government Speech: Pleasant Grove City v Summum and Its Ambiguities

Following the mass protests caused by the murder of George Floyd, among other unarmed African Americans in May 2020, the removal of Confederate symbols has again captured national attention. Yet, opponents of Confederate monuments now face a major constitutional hurdle: the government speech doctrine, which holds that First Amendment restrictions, such as content discrimination, do not apply when the United States government is the speaker. Therefore, the question becomes: Do Confederate monuments occupying government land adhere to the government speech doctrine?

Jerry ChenJune 20, 2021First Amendment, free speech

Coercive Assimilation: The Constitutionality of Enforcing English Signage

It may seem like a sensible choice to mandate that all signage in America be in English. After all, English is the most spoken language in the country, and all signage should be accessible to the majority. Upon further examination, however, it is clear that forcing minority-owned businesses to offer English signage blurs the boundary between helping the majority and unconstitutionally sanctioning forced assimilation.

Haley ChungOctober 2, 2020immigration, language, free speech, assimilation

Rap Beef, Diss Tracks, and what Pennsylvania v. Knox can tell us about Protected Free Speech

Pennsylvania v. Knox (2018) is situated in a larger debate concerning the extent to which rap music constitutes protected free speech. More specifically, this case tested the limits of rap as a form of free speech and the extent to which the First Amendment tolerates violence expressed in rap lyrics. However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s limited understanding of the nuances of rap, and their judicial narrowing of this art form as monolithic, has set precedent that inserts legal and textual ambiguity into the nexus between between free speech and rap.

fall 2019JiHoon KoDecember 4, 2019free speech, First Amendment, hip-hop, rap Comments

Urban Dictionary: The New Expert Witness?

Beyond the evident free speech questions that Iancu v. Brunetti poses, the case also has brought attention to the forms of evidence presented in court. In its argument in linking the name “Fuct” to its implied expletive counterpart, the USPTO provided an Urban Dictionary definition of ‘fuct,’which defined the term as the past tense of the verb ‘fuck,’’ finding the term to be ‘recognized as a slang and literal equivalent of the word “fucked,”’ with ‘the same vulgar meaning.’”

Daniella ApodacaMay 24, 2019federal, urban dictionary, trademark, free speech, evidenceComment

For the Protection Against Hate Speech or For the Freedom of Expression?

In recent years, a new trend of creating “safe spaces” has emerged on college campuses across the country. While the implementation of safe spaces varies between universities, the term is generally applied to certain areas on campus that are intended to be free from bias, potentially offensive ideas, topics of controversy, or other forms of conflict. In most cases, colleges designate specific areas intended to protect students from any potentially harmful or offensive speech that they might encounter on campus. At some universities this concept is being extended further, with entire campuses being designated as safe zones.

Should Facebook be Accessible to Sex Offenders? A First Amendment Analysis

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.”[1] The Supreme Court has typically interpreted the term “speech” to incorporate a broad range of expressions, including the use of Internet.[2] However, the increasing use of the Internet and social media sites has led to debate as to what constitutes free speech in the digital age and if digital platforms should be made accessible to the entire public. Currently, Facebook’s accessibility to the public has been contested in relation to the right of sex offenders to use the site, as limiting their access conflicts with freedom of speech protected under the First Amendment.