Article Abstract:
The US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in Burnham v. Ianni held that no qualified immunity attached to a university chancellor in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case for damages brought by students and professors claiming a 1st Amendment violation. The correct holding on the 1st Amendment issue was tarnished by the court's denial of immunity to the public administrator. Judicial warning of the limits of campus speech suppression and the scope of qualified immunity should have been given before subjecting a public employee to monetary damages.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
Statutes that provide enhanced penalties for hate crimes are constitutional although they have been overturned by supreme courts in Ohio and Wisconsin on First Amendment grounds. Penalty-enhancement statutes can be distinguished from hate-speech statutes such as the one struck down in R.A.V. v City of St Paul, which was cited in both the Ohio and Wisconsin decisions. Penalty-enhancement statutes do not restrict expression, but target the motive for certain violent crimes.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Article Abstract:
Akhil Amar's proposal to apply the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to cases of racial hate speech is creative, but should be viewed with caution. Amar suggests that the constitutional prohibition of 'badges of servitude' can be interpreted to include racial hate speech. However, Amar's interpretation is vague and unpredictable, less plausible than the standard reading and runs the risk of being interpreted too broadly.
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic: