Clay Calvert, a member of the State Bar of California, is an expert in communications law, freedom of expression, freedom of speech and mass media law. As director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, Clay has filed, as counsel of record, multiple friend-of-the-court briefs with the United States Supreme Court. He holds a joint appointment as a professor of law with the Levin College of Law and as a professor of mass media law in the College of Journalism and Communications.
Industry Expertise (2)
Areas of Expertise (3)
Media Appearances (5)
In push against ‘indoctrination,’ DeSantis mandates surveys of Florida college students’ beliefs
The Washington Post online
Clay Calvert, director of the University of Florida’s Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project, said the law raises a crucial question: Why a survey? “I think the answer is that it is being mandated because it gives a conservative state legislative body a tool to withhold funding from a university that, based upon the survey results, seems to discriminate against conservative viewpoints,” he said in an interview.
Florida's Economy 'On a Really Positive Trajectory,' Critical Race Theory, and Taking on Big Tech
Why You Should Care About Florida's New Social Media 'Deplatforming' Law
"This is really red-state Florida versus liberal Silicon Valley, California," says Clay Calvert, a law professor at the University of Florida's Levin College of Law and College of Journalism and Communications. "There's a lot of political symbolism in adopting this."
Did DeSantis violate First Amendment with Fox News-only bill signing?
Tampa Bay Times online
Because the bill signing was a “public proceeding,” DeSantis should not have been able to limit which news outlets could cover it, said Clay Calvert, a University of Florida law professor and director of the school’s First Amendment Project. People who don’t have a cable subscription or who don’t watch that network wouldn’t have seen it. “Unless you’re watching Fox, you’re going to be denied access to information,” Calvert said. “That’s troubling regardless of the First Amendment issues.”
Is Twitter violating President Trump's right to free speech? Expert says no
Clay Calvert, a law professor and the head of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project at the University of Florida, says Twitter's suspension of Trump's account is fair game. "The First Amendment only protects us from government censorship, not censorship by private entities," said Calvert, who has co-authored more than 150 law journal articles on issues related to freedom of expression. "In this case, Twitter is a private entity, so the First Amendment really has no bearing at all.
Wither Zauderer, Blossom Heightened Scrutiny? How the Supreme Court’s 2018 Rulings in Becerra and Janus Exacerbate Problems with Compelled-Speech JurisprudenceWashington and Lee Law Review
This Article examines how the United States Supreme Court’s 2018 decisions in the First Amendment cases of National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, Council 31, muddle an already disorderly compelled-speech doctrine.
The First Amendment and Speech Urging Suicide: Lessons from the Case of Michelle Carter and the Need to Expand Brandenburg's ApplicationTulane Law Review
This Article examines the level of First Amendment protection that applies when a defendant-speaker is charged with involuntary manslaughter based on successfully urging a person to commit suicide. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts’ February 2019 decision in Commonwealth v. Carter provides a timely analytical springboard.
Iancu v. Brunetti’s Impact on First Amendment Law: Viewpoint Discrimination, Modes of Offensive Expression, Proportionality and ProfanityThe Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts
This article analyzes and contextualizes multiple effects on First Amendment jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court’s 2019 trademark ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti. It explores what the five opinions in the case reveal regarding the justices’ divergent views on both offensive speech and standards of scrutiny.