Our peer assessment Free Speech Legislation Journal, now nearly three years previous, has printed 65 articles, together with these by Jack Balkin (Yale), Mark Lemley (Stanford), Jeremy Waldron (NYU), Cynthia Estlund (NYU), Christopher Yoo (Penn), Danielle Citron ( Virginia), Keith Whittington (Princeton, shifting to Yale) (forthcoming) and plenty of others, each distinguished figures within the discipline and rising younger researchers (together with those that didn’t have tutorial appointments resulting in permanence). The articles have been cited to this point in 4 court docket instances, greater than 125 articles (not together with articles within the Journal itself), and a minimum of 50 briefs. And word that every one articles solely had two years or much less to draw these citations.
I feel many authors are planning to submit free speech articles to the common regulation journals when the submission cycle resumes in February. However when you contact us completely earlier than then, we’ll reply to you inside 14 days (our assure, which we have now by no means damaged to this point); after which if you’d like it printed shortly, we are able to publish it in just a few weeks, if it is clear sufficient and checked by your analysis assistant. (We will even have it checked for you by considered one of our college students, nevertheless it takes a bit longer.) Which means that your article could be printed by us, if accepted, for nearly a yr ( or extra) earlier than it’s. be printed by authorized journals.
After all, be at liberty to ahead this message to your folks or colleagues who you suppose may be . Notice that submissions are usually not competing for a restricted variety of locations in a problem or quantity; We are going to publish objects that meet our high quality requirements at any time when we obtain them.
All submissions have to be unique to us, however, once more, you should have a response inside 14 days, so you’ll be able to submit your request elsewhere if we are saying no. Please submit an nameless venture, accompanied by at https://freespeechlaw.scholasticahq.com/. Some pointers:
- In lieu of a canopy letter, please submit not more than a web page (and ideally only a paragraph or two) explaining why your article is new. If there’s a specific solution to present this (e.g. that is the primary article that discusses how Case X and Doctrine Y work together), please tell us.
- Please submit articles single-spaced, in a proportionally spaced font.
- Please be certain that the introduction shortly and clearly explains the primary claims you make.
- Please keep away from detailed normal sections reciting acquainted Supreme Court docket precedents or different well-known points. We desire articles that get to the purpose (if mandatory, shortly explaining the required authorized ideas as you go).
- Every article needs to be as brief as attainable and so long as mandatory.
- Like everybody, we like easy, clear and fascinating writing.
- We welcome scholar written work and consider it utilizing the identical requirements that apply to work written by others.
We publish:
- Articles that say one thing we do not already know.
- Articles with all types of approaches: doctrinal, theoretical, historic, empirical or others.
- Articles coping with speech, the press, the meeting, the petition or expression extra broadly.
- Typically, these are usually not articles targeted solely on the Free Train Clause or the Institution Clause except additionally they deal substantively with spiritual speech.
- Articles concerning the First Modification, state constitutional provisions on free speech, federal and state legal guidelines, widespread regulation guidelines, and rules defending or limiting free speech, or freedom of speech rules expression of personal organizations.
- Articles on American regulation, international regulation, comparative regulation or worldwide regulation.
- Each a big, formidable work and extra restricted materials.
- Articles helpful for the academy, the bench or the bar (or if attainable, all three).
- Articles arguing for broader speech protections, narrower speech protections, or anything.
