To see more about the articles and authors we’ve published so far, see our http://JournalOfFreeSpeechLaw.org; to submit, go to ScholasticaHQ. So far we’ve published articles by Jack Balkin (Yale), Mark Lemley (Stanford), Jeremy Waldron (NYU), Cynthia Estlund (NYU), Christopher Yoo (Penn), Danielle Citron (Virginia), and many others—both prominent figures in the field and emerging scholars. We require simultaneous submissions, but we promise to give a response within 14 days, so if we say no, you’ve lost very little. And then we can publish quickly, which can be particularly valuable for new pieces.
We’re also willing to publish short pieces, if they say something genuinely new and smart. We’re not generally interested in casenotes that mostly restate the facts and holding of a case, since it’s rare for there to be something novel, nonobvious, and useful there. But something that explains how the underlying area of the law (e.g., compelled speech law, the law of threats, the law of solicitation and aiding and abetting, and so on) is changed by the case could be very useful; likewise for how other areas of the law might be affected by the developments in this area.
Of course, we’re also continuing to review articles that are unrelated to this Supreme Court Term’s cases. (We just accepted one a few days ago, for instance, on platform transparency laws.) But I just wanted to particularly stress our openness to short articles on those cases.
The post Have Smart, Nonobvious Things to Say in Law Review Article Form About Court’s New First Amendment Decisions? appeared first on Reason.com.
