Harvard Law Review does NOT agree with Jerome Larkin on the 1st Amendment and attorney speech


from the Harvard Law Review:


The conclusion of this article is as follows:

As I have tried to explain above, granting full First Amendment
protection to occupational speech is the only position that is consistent
with binding Supreme Court precedent. It is also the only position
that is consistent, more broadly, with the general trend of the Supreme
Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence over the last 20 years, which
has removed political speech from a position of privilege and now recognizes that speech on a wide variety of topics is entitled to robust
constitutional protection. Whether that was, as Post and Shanor argue,
a “radical[] ” shift when it began in the 1990s, it is now merely
the long-established law.
To be sure, there are those who wish this shift had never occurred,
but even its most ardent critics recognize that it has occurred.
Thus, whatever merit the…

View original post 588 more words

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s