Docs Versus Glocks: N.R.A. Takes Aim At Florida Physicians’ Freedom of Speech: Leaving Patients’ Health, Safety, and Welfare At Risk

Authors

Michelle Foody, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Volume

2013

First Page

228

Last Page

258-263

Publication Date

2013

Document Type

Note

Abstract

Part I of this Note provides background on the Act at issue, its legislative history, the current status of the Supreme Court’s free speech jurisprudence, and it also introduces the constitutional interests at stake. Part II considers the constitutionality of the Act under the existing First Amendment standard and addresses the State’s assertions under the Second Amendment. Part III proposes that the Court’s standard ought to be recalibrated, taking into account the would-be listeners’ cognizable interest in the information. Part III goes on to legitimate the proposal by reconciling this new examination standard with existing free speech jurisprudence and justifications, along with a brief exposition of the likeness between the Note’s proposal and the doctrine of informed consent.

Keywords

Communications Law, First Amendment, Legal Profession, Constitutional Law, Professional Ethics in Law, Property--Personal and Real, Firearms, Second Amendment, Legal History, Right to Bear Arms

Recommended Citation

Michelle Foody, Docs Versus Glocks: N.R.A. Takes Aim At Florida Physicians’ Freedom of Speech: Leaving Patients’ Health, Safety, and Welfare At Risk, 2013 Cardozo L. Rev. De-Novo 228 (2013).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/de-novo/11