20th Annual Howard B. Eisenberg Do-Gooders’ Auction–An Interview with PILS Fellow Maria Lopez

The 20th Annual Howard B. Eisenberg Do-Gooders’ Auction on behalf of the Law School’s Public Interest Law Society (PILS) will be held on February 15, 2013 at the Law School. Proceeds from the event go to support PILS Fellowships to enable Marquette law students to do public interest work in the summer. Maria Lopez, a current law student, shares her experience here as a PILS Fellow.

Where did you work as a PILS Fellow?

I interned with the Illinois Migrant Legal Assistance Project (IMLAP) at their office in Rantoul, Illinois.

What kind of work did you do there?

IMLAP’s mission is to advocate on behalf migrant agricultural workers and educate them on their rights as workers. My duties included outreach to workers at their housing or work sites, collaboration with local agencies such as Migrant Head Start and the Department of Human Services, and meeting with employers on behalf of our clients.

How was the experience meaningful to you?

My experience with IMLAP was meaningful because it provided me with an opportunity to work closely with great people–not only my clients, but also my supervisors and coworkers, as well as other agency representatives, all of whom were very supportive.

Continue Reading20th Annual Howard B. Eisenberg Do-Gooders’ Auction–An Interview with PILS Fellow Maria Lopez

What Did an Ex-Girlfriend, a School District Resident, and a Company Share in Common? A Round-Up of First Amendment Cases Distinguishing “Content-Based” from “Content-Neutral” Speech Restrictions

Constitution & GavelIt’s not every day that a boyfriend-girlfriend spat results in a First Amendment challenge.

The Fourth District Court of Appeals in Florida recently reviewed an appeal from an ex-girlfriend who was prevented from telling all by her ex-boyfriend’s temporary restraining order (TRO). Vrasic v. Leibel (2013 WL 85412). After they broke up, the ex-girlfriend created a website to pre-sell a book about their relationship. She also posted an excerpt containing defamatory statements about him. A lower court granted the ex-boyfriend’s demand for a TRO. The Court of Appeals reversed to the extent that the TRO prevented even defamatory speech on the theories that it was a content-based prior restraint on speech and that the proper remedy is an action for damages.

When analyzing First Amendment free speech challenges, courts first decide if the speech restriction is “content-neutral” or “content-based.” This threshold distinction drives whether a government restriction of speech deserves more exacting scrutiny by courts. The government is unlikely to prevail where the restriction is content-based. But content-neutral restrictions are less problematic and are often permissible.

Deciding if a restriction is content-based or content-neutral is a tricky matter. A content-based restriction will usually target speech directly, while a content-neutral one will affect speech only incidentally. Because the assessment is fact-specific, a review of recent cases making this determination may be the best way to shine a light on the distinction.

Continue ReadingWhat Did an Ex-Girlfriend, a School District Resident, and a Company Share in Common? A Round-Up of First Amendment Cases Distinguishing “Content-Based” from “Content-Neutral” Speech Restrictions