Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

The Freedom of Speech: Comedy and Defamation

4/28/2015

2 Comments

 
Picture
By Dan Spinelli 

Dan Spinelli is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE).

Libel, the  publication  of false statements  defamatory to  one’s  character, is one of the most inscrutable areas of constitutional law. Laws surrounding libel and slander, the spoken form of libel, often provoke some of the judicial system’s most eccentric cases. This article will trace the developments in libel law over the past half­-century  by  focusing  on  the  landmark  1987  Supreme  Court  case  of  Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, and discuss a more recent controversy involving comedienne Sarah Silverman and rapper Eminem.

Hustler Magazine opened up the floodgates for defamation of public figures through  a quite humorous  case. After discovering his scandalous portrayal in the magazine, Reverend Jerry Falwell sued Hustler. [1] Falwell was  a figurehead  of the  “moral majority” movement  of the  1980’s that  aligned  the Republican  Party with the Christian right. His  notoriety made  him  an  easy target for  controversial publications like Hustler. In one issue, Hustler ran a parody feature discussing the “first times” of different celebrities, and depicted Falwell’s first time as a “drunken incestuous  rendezvous  with  his  mother  in  an  outhouse.”  [2]  This  evidently outrageous piece enraged Falwell, who sued Hustler for defamation of character.


Read More
2 Comments

The Principle of Legality: Protecting Rights in Australia

4/23/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
By Siddarth Sethi

In April 2010, the Australian government released its Human Rights Framework, a formal response to the  recommendations  proposed  by the National Human Rights  Consultation chaired  by  Father  Frank  Brennan  AO.  The  Framework  adopted  many  of  the recommendations  put  forth  by  the  Brennan  Committee’s  Report,  including  increasing efforts to educate Australians about their rights, and about the nature of rights protection in  Australia  generally.  However,  the  Australian  government  rejected  the  Committee’s primary recommendation to adopt a statutory bill of rights, or Human Rights Act, modeled on  existing  state  and  territory  legislation  already  operating  in  the  Australian  Capital Territory  and  Victoria.  Due  to  the  lack  of  federal  legislation,  the  judicial  statutory interpretation  principles,  particularly  the  principle  of  legality,  remain  the  primary mechanisms of rights protection in Australia. [1]

Recent High Court decisions including that of Plaintiff S10/2011 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (‘Plaintiff S10’) suggest that the power of these mechanisms to prevent the government  from  rescinding  fundamental  common  law  rights  has  waned.  [2][1]Additionally, the changes to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 proposed by the  Abbott  government have  highlighted  concerns  surrounding  the  balance  of  federal rights  protection  mechanisms  and  the  maintenance  of  satisfactory  checks  on  legislative power.  Given  the  current  political  climate,  whether  the  current  principle  of  legality provides adequate rights protection or whether something more, such as the statutory bill of  rights  suggested  by the Brennan Committee,  is needed  has  become  increasingly  more important.

Read More
1 Comment

The Supreme Court: Equal Justice Under Law

4/17/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Michael A. Keshmiri

Michael A. Keshmiri is a student at the University of Pennsylvania and an associate editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal.

Last year, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits struck down state bans on same-­sex marriage, rapidly increasing the number of states where same­-sex marriages are legal. [1] Since the rulings of these lower level courts did not conflict, the U.S. Supreme Court, having long been reticent in definitively ruling whether bans on same-­sex marriage violate the U.S. Constitution, chose not to intervene. However, on November 6, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld bans on same-­sex marriage in four states, putting this decision directly at odds with rulings from its sister courts. [2]

The 2­-1 decision in the Sixth Circuit stressed that it is up to the states to decide on the issue of same-­sex marriage, not the federal courts. “Better, in this instance, we think,” wrote Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, “to allow change through the customary political processes, in which the people, gay and straight alike, become the heroes of their own stories by meeting each other not as adversaries in a court system but as fellow citizens seeking to resolve a new social issue in a fair­-minded way.” [3] Senior Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey, however, issued a stern dissent reminding her colleagues that federal courts have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of the minority. [4]

Read More
0 Comments

Drawing the Line: Redistricting in North Carolina

4/16/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Natasha Kang

Natasha Kang is a senior at the University of California, Davis. 

By 1965, Congress had discovered that existing federal anti‐discrimination laws were not nearly enough to prevail over the opposition of state officials. When the Department of Justice tried to eliminate discriminatory electoral practices on a case‐by‐case basis, it found that as soon as a discriminatory practice was proven unconstitutional, another one took its place. [1] Thus, a stronger piece of voting rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, was passed to effectively uproot state disenfranchisement. [1] Sadly, the VRA did not bring about the end of disenfranchisement, as seen in the events following the 2010 United States Census.

After a national census is taken, state officials use census data to reconsider and redraw the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts. [2] This formally allows state officials to incorporate shifts in the population and guarantee equal representation for their constituents with respect to the principles of the VRA. However, in reality, equal representation is far from guaranteed—and “redistricting” is becoming more well‐known as “racial gerrymandering” in the state of North Carolina.


Read More
0 Comments

An Unlikely Success:  The Iran‐United States Claims Tribunal

4/15/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
By Sebastian Bates

Sebastian Bates is a first-year law student at Keble College, Oxford University. 

As the month of March drew to a close, the eyes of the world turned towards Lausanne, Switzerland, where negotiations to draft an accord that would limit the Iranian nuclear program were extended. Reports claimed that the atmosphere of the talks had been tense – France had been become increasingly hawkish and the Iranian representatives ever-more intransigent as the March 31st deadline came and went. However, the talks were not without an element of collegiality. Both the American Secretary of Energy, Ernest J. Moniz, and the senior Iranian nuclear scientist, Ali Akbar Salehi, spent time teaching or studying at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and apparently developed a good rapport.

No such warmth existed the last time the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America met for such widely‐publicized diplomatic talks. In 1980, then‐Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher led a delegation to Algiers to “resolve the crisis in relations” between the two countries “arising out of the November 1979 hostage crisis.” [1] On January 19, 1981, this delegation and its Iranian counterpart signed the Algiers Accords, which established the Iran‐United States Claims Tribunal. [2] The Accords assigned the Tribunal “the enormous task of adjudicating disputes involving billions of dollars in commercial debts, breached contracts, nationalizations, expropriations and other measures affecting property rights.” [3]

Read More
1 Comment

Constitutional Viability: Compulsory Voting in a Democratic Society

4/14/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Sandeep Suresh

Sandeep Suresh is a fifth-year law student at the National Law University in Jodhpur, India.

Most major democracies have, at one point or another, had extensive debates regarding their electoral systems due to elections’ integral role in the formation of the skeletal system of a democratic nation. One such aspect of electoral politics that has assumed center stage for debate in the recent past is compulsory voting. The proponents and opponents of compulsory voting have argued from two fronts: the legal front and the logistical front. 

There have been more arguments against compulsory voting than for it. From a legal and philosophical angle, I would like to argue that compulsory voting would be in the best interests of the society as a whole. The basic essence of my argument is that in a democracy with a well-defined constitution in place, there can never be a situation where only individual rights can be given an upper hand. There has to be a harmonious balance within the constitution with respect to the rights and duties of every citizen. To quote President Barack Obama:


Read More
0 Comments

The Nonprofit Status: Universities and the Nonprofit Problem

4/10/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Dan Spinelli

Dan Spinelli is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE).

From 1958 to 1970, Philadelphia’s professional football team, the Eagles, played its games at Franklin Field on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania. The stadium, which could hold a maximum capacity of 60,658 fans at the time, hosted legendary games, including the 1960 NFL Championship (the precursor to the Super Bowl), in which the underdog Eagles beat the Green Bay Packers, coached by the legendary Vince Lombardi. So how much did this NFL team pay Penn to use their facilities?

Well...they didn’t.


Read More
0 Comments

On Shaky Legal Legs: Surrogacy and the Law

4/9/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture


By Rebecca Heilweil

Rebecca Heilweil is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

Surrogacy, an age‐old process that has helped created unique and vibrant families, has improved the lives of many. Surrogates have enabled single, same‐sex, and infertile parents to have the children they’ve always wanted, thus contributing, in their own small way, to America’s unique culture.

But even successful surrogate stories can bring up questions regarding custody and parental rights, and unenforced surrogacy contracts become even more complicated. When money becomes involved and courts refuse to enforce surrogacy contracts, people feel personally victimized. Not only are thousands of dollars lost, but potential parents have also been denied the family that had been promised to them.




Read More
0 Comments

Ads and the First Amendment: A Public Crisis

4/8/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Tanner Bowen

Tanner Bowen is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying business.

The First Amendment is often cited as one of the most controversial yet most sacredly guarded rights of the United States Constitution. Even today, after numerous cases of litigation that have redefined our understanding of this fundamental right, the government’s ability to possibly restrict it is still hotly debated, as the Seattle Midwest Awareness Campaign (SeaMAC) discovered.

SeaMAC is a non-profit organization based in Washington State that is opposed to US support of Israel. In late 2010, SeaMAC applied for an advertisement spot on the Metro City Buses in Seattle for four weeks. The ad simply stated: “ISRAELI WAR CRIMES/YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK/www.Stop30Billion-Seattle.org.” Although this ad was unequivocally controversial, it did not initially violate any of the Metro’s restrictions against profanity or any other defamatory or inappropriate content. Thus, King County approved the ad and intended to let it run until a local television broadcast picked up the story. 

Read More
0 Comments

Prayer Groups and Academic Policy in Colorado Classrooms

4/2/2015

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Taryn MacKinney

Taryn MacKinney is an Executive Editor of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal and a student at the University of Pennsylvania.

A recent Colorado lawsuit has sparked controversy over religious expression in public schools. Chase Windebank, a Colorado Springs high school student, is suing his school district for what he deemed a violation of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Though the lawsuit – still in its infancy – has already generated intense debate, the topic isn’t new; the issue of free speech in schools has been battled out for decades in courts. Since the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines (1965) case, which ruled in favor of student rights when it claimed that neither “students [nor] teachers shed their constitutional rights…at the schoolhouse gate,” the Supreme Court and circuit courts have ruled erratically. [1] In Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986), Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988), and Morse v. Frederick (2007), the Supreme Court refined Tinker by adding parameters to student free speech. In B.H. v. Easton Area School District (2014), however, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed this decades-long trend by upholding the rights of students to wear controversial breast cancer bracelets; the Supreme Court rejected the School District’s appeal, solidifying the stance taken by the lower court. [2] Now, only a little more than a year after B.H. v. Easton, the Windebank lawsuit promises to stir things up again.


Read More
0 Comments

    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Ella Sohn
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    March 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​