“You Be the Justice” Full Assignment Details 

Preparation will require substantial research. You will select a case related to your concentration and each member of your group will assume the role of one of the Justices presiding over that case. You will discuss and debate this case and explain your decision in a podcast, based on a well-researched script you will create.

Goals

• To research the justice so that you know his or her past, how he or she became a justice, the judicial philosophy developed on the court, significant cases in which he or she was involved,
• What were the facts of the case as they were presented to the court, interpreted through the justice?
• Show how the justice engaged with the case during deliberation and hypothesize what the justice was thinking and feeling.
• Identify the verdict and explain why, based on your prior research, the justice voted the way they did.
• You will need to do significant research or your justice, and the prior and present cases in which they have been involved. You will also need to read the case, listen to the deliberations, and basically immerse in the facts and decision-making process.

You can use your own recording equipment (computer, iPad) where you will get to sound and speak like your justice in recording about the case. You may include audio clips from the actual case via oyez.org, if available for your case. This project will also include submission of a written script/outline on which your podcast will be based, with citations to show from where your supporting evidence came.

Rubric

The assignment will be judged on the following criteria: (15 points each)

• Script development: Every podcast must first be crafted into a script that clearly outlines the narrative flow, facts, and character.
• Character development: How well do we see this justice, based on mannerisms, language, voice, anecdotes?
• Character’s history: How well do we see where this justice came from and how he or she got to the court?
• Judicial philosophy: How well do we understand his or her judicial philosophy and how it was shaped?
• Justice’s significant cases: How well do we see important cases in which this justice played a role, and how those cases helped develop his or her judicial philosophy?
• Understanding of this case: How well does this justice understand the legal framework of this case and its impact on the First Amendment?
• Precedent cases: What precedent cases that we learned about in class (and beyond) will help shape this justice’s decision-making in regards to this case?
• Maintaining character: How well do you maintain the persona of this justice throughout the podcast or paper?
• Quality of citations: From where did your information come on this justice and the case. Is your research broad enough to support your character development and case understanding?
• Quality of recording and posting success: Your podcast will be evaluated in terms of fact-based reporting, audio clarity, editing and posting success.

Full ChatGPT-4 output:

“You Be the Justice” Assignment ChatGPT Results

The results:

Title: “Matal v. Tam: A Supreme Court Podcast with Justices Alito and Roberts”

Introduction:

[Background music]

Host: Welcome to the “Matal v. Tam” podcast, where we delve deep into one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in recent years. I’m your host, and today we’ll be exploring the thoughts and opinions of Justices Alito and Roberts as they grappled with the complexities of this landmark case. So, let’s dive right in and meet our two justices.

[Soundbite of Justice Alito]

Justice Alito (impersonator): Hello, I’m Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed in 2006. I’ve been described as a conservative jurist with a strong commitment to free speech and individual rights [1].

[Soundbite of Justice Roberts]

Justice Roberts (impersonator): Hi there, I’m Chief Justice John Roberts, nominated by President George W. Bush and confirmed in 2005. I’m known for my conservative views, but I also value stability and continuity in the law [2].

Host: Thank you, Justices Alito and Roberts. Now, let’s set the stage by discussing the background of the Matal v. Tam case.

[Background music fades out]

Act 1: Background of Matal v. Tam

Justice Alito (impersonator): Matal v. Tam is a case that centers around a key question of First Amendment law. The Slants, an Asian American rock band, attempted to trademark their name but were denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO argued that the name was disparaging to people of Asian descent, invoking the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act [3].

Justice Roberts (impersonator): That’s right. The Slants’ frontman, Simon Tam, argued that the denial of the trademark violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court, where we had to determine whether the disparagement clause was constitutional or not [3].

Act 2: Deliberations and Thought Processes

Host: During the deliberations, how did each of you engage with the case, and what were your thoughts and feelings?

Justice Alito (impersonator): I was concerned about the government’s ability to restrict speech based on its content. The disparagement clause seemed to be a form of viewpoint discrimination, which I believe is at odds with the First Amendment. I was also worried that upholding the clause could lead to a slippery slope, where the government could deny trademarks for other reasons they deemed offensive [4].

Justice Roberts (impersonator): For me, the central question was whether trademarks constituted government speech or private speech. If it was government speech, then the disparagement clause could be upheld. But if it was private speech, then the clause would likely violate the First Amendment. I was leaning toward the view that trademarks were a form of private speech [5].

Act 3: The Verdict

Host: Ultimately, how did each of you vote, and why did you vote that way?

Justice Alito (impersonator): I voted to strike down the disparagement clause as unconstitutional. I felt that the government should not have the power to restrict speech based on its content, especially when it comes to trademarks, which I believe are a form of private speech [6].

Justice Roberts (impersonator): I concurred with Justice Alito’s opinion. I also believed that trademarks were a form of private speech and that the disparagement clause violated the First Amendment. In the end, the Court ruled unanimously in favor of The Slants, declaring the disparagement clause unconstitutional [6].

Conclusion:

Host: Thank you, Justices Alito and Roberts, for sharing your insights on the Matal v. Tam case. This case has undoubtedly played a significant role in shaping First Amendment jurisprudence and your judicial philosophies.

[Background music]

As we wrap up our podcast, let’s briefly touch upon some precedent cases that may have influenced your decision-making in this case.

Justice Alito (impersonator): One important precedent was the case of Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), where the Court struck down a municipal sign code that discriminated based on the content of the signs. This case helped solidify the principle that content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which was highly relevant in our consideration of the disparagement clause [7].

Justice Roberts (impersonator): Another influential case was United States v. Alvarez (2012), where the Court ruled that the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about receiving military honors, was unconstitutional. This case underscored the importance of protecting even unpopular or offensive speech under the First Amendment [8].

Host: It’s fascinating to see how these precedent cases have shaped your approach to the Matal v. Tam case. Thank you both for maintaining your characters so well throughout this podcast and providing us with a deeper understanding of your perspectives as Supreme Court Justices.

[Background music fades out]

This concludes our episode on Matal v. Tam with Justices Alito and Roberts. We hope you’ve enjoyed this in-depth exploration of one of the most significant Supreme Court cases in recent history. Be sure to check the show notes for citations and further information on the justices, the case, and the precedent cases mentioned. Thanks for tuning in, and we’ll see you next time on the Supreme Court Podcast!

[Podcast outro music]

Citations:

[1] Liptak, A. (2006, October 31). Senate Confirms Alito as Supreme Court Justice. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/31/politics/politicsspecial1/31cnd-alito.html

[2] Lane, C. (2005, September 29). John Roberts Confirmed As Chief Justice. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/29/AR2005092900233.html

[3] Liptak, A. (2017, June 19). Justices Strike Down Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/us/politics/supreme-court-trademarks-redskins.html

[4] Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (Alito, J., plurality opinion). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

[5] Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017) (Roberts, C.J., concurring). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

[6] Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf

[7] Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-502_9olb.pdf

[8] United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

Host (closing): Once again, thank you Justices Alito and Roberts for sharing your perspectives on the Matal v. Tam case. As our listeners now know, this case serves as a prime example of the importance of First Amendment protections and how they can shape our understanding of free speech in the United States.

[Background music fades out]

We hope our audience has enjoyed this enlightening conversation and gained a better understanding of the Matal v. Tam case, the thought processes of Justices Alito and Roberts, and the precedent cases that influenced their decisions. Don’t forget to check the show notes for all citations and further information on the justices, the case, and the precedent cases mentioned. Thanks for joining us today on the Supreme Court Podcast. Until next time!

[Podcast outro music]

Iterative Prompting

We might prompt ChatGPT to make improvements in the following way: “Could you expand this passage to go into more detail on the reasoning, written in the rhetorical style of Justice Alito?” I then appended the in which Alito speaks to his reasoning.

Results: “Justice Alito (impersonator): I voted to strike down the disparagement clause as unconstitutional for several reasons. First and foremost, I believe that the government should not have the power to restrict speech based on its content. The First Amendment is a foundational principle of our democracy, and one of its primary purposes is to protect speech that might be unpopular, controversial, or even offensive. By allowing the government to deny trademarks based on their perceived offensiveness, we would be granting the government a significant amount of control over the marketplace of ideas.

Furthermore, I am of the opinion that trademarks are a form of private speech. When an individual or a group seeks to trademark a name, slogan, or logo, they are expressing themselves and their identity. Trademarks are not just a means of identifying and distinguishing goods and services in commerce; they also often carry expressive content and convey messages about the trademark owner’s beliefs, values, or aspirations. Therefore, trademarks should be afforded the same protections as other forms of private speech under the First Amendment.

In addition, I was concerned about the potential implications of upholding the disparagement clause. If the government were allowed to deny trademarks based on their content, it could potentially lead to a slippery slope where the government could justify denying trademarks for other reasons they deemed offensive or inappropriate. This could result in viewpoint discrimination, where the government favors certain viewpoints over others, which is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment.

Finally, I found the disparagement clause to be too vague and subjective. What one person finds disparaging, another might find inoffensive or even empowering. Allowing the government to make such subjective determinations could result in arbitrary and inconsistent decisions that undermine the core principles of the First Amendment.

For these reasons, I voted to strike down the disparagement clause as unconstitutional, affirming the importance of free speech and preventing government overreach into the realm of private expression.”

This additional prompting creates a much stronger result. Other such iterative expansions could be done in further portions of the script, leading to an end result that would likely produce an overall excellent grade on the assignment.

Citation Accuracy Analysis Excerpt

The results here are mixed, in that the links to New York Times articles and the decision for the Matal v. Tam case all work correctly. Although the links for the Reed v. Town of Gilbert and U.S. v. Alvarez cases do not work, a quick investigation via the Wayback Machine shows that these links were working as recently as November of 2022, and seem to have been broken sometime between then and April of 2023. In other words, these were valid links based on the data that ChatGPT was trained on, which included material only through 2021. The Washington Post article alone was potentially hallucinated, as neither the Wayback Machine nor search engines offer any suggestion that it existed. However, a quick Google of the title and place of publication quickly turned up an alternative, existing article in the Washington Post. Seen this way, these citations could pretty easily be corrected in less than five minutes with a few search engine queries. 

AI Generated Audio

Here is a short clip of an excerpt from ChatGPT, generated using https://beta.elevenlabs.io/.

---

Style Studio Mimic Assignment ChatGPT Output

Prompt 1: Write a story about seashells that copies the choices in style, rhetoric, literary devices, grammar, usage, syntax, and mechanics that Brian Doyle uses in his story “Joyas Voladoras”

Result: In the early morning light, the beach was littered with seashells. They were scattered across the sand like a thousand tiny jewels, each one a unique work of art crafted by the sea.

Some were smooth and round, like polished stones worn down by the relentless waves. Others were rough and jagged, with sharp edges that caught the light and gleamed like diamonds. And still others were delicate and intricate, like intricate lacework formed from delicate strands of calcium.

As I walked along the shore, I picked up one shell after another, marveling at their beauty and complexity. Each one had its own story to tell, its own secrets hidden within its curves and crevices.

I held a conch shell up to my ear and listened to the soft, whispering sound of the ocean. It was as if the shell held the entire sea within its spiraled depths, a tiny portal into a world of endless blue.

I found a small, delicate seashell shaped like a star, its delicate points still intact despite the roughness of the sand. It was a miracle that it had survived, a tiny testament to the resilience of life.

As I walked along, lost in wonder at the shells that surrounded me, I realized that each one was a joyas voladoras, a flying jewel of the sea. They may be small and unassuming, but they were also works of art, each one crafted by the sea with a care and attention that bordered on the divine.

I felt a sense of awe and wonder at the intricate beauty of the seashells, and I knew that I would never look at the beach in the same way again. For in those tiny, fragile shells, I had found a glimpse of the infinite, a tiny window into the boundless beauty of the natural world.

Prompt 2: Rewrite this story about seashells but copy the syntax patterns of this passage: [pasted the first two paragraphs of “Joyas Voladoras”]”

Result 2: Consider the seashell for a moment. A seashell’s form is a wonder to behold. Each shell a unique expression of the sea’s artistry. Smooth and polished, jagged and sharp, or delicate and intricate, seashells come in a vast array of shapes and sizes, each one a precious jewel forged by the tides.

In the palm of your hand, a seashell is a marvel to study. The curves and crevices that define its shape, the patterns etched upon its surface, all telling a story of the shell’s creation. No two shells are alike, each one a work of art created with care and precision.

Like the hummingbird, the seashell is a small thing that contains a universe of wonder. A seashell may seem unassuming, but it is a marvel of nature, created with the same care and attention as the most majestic of creatures. And like the hummingbird, the seashell is fragile, easily broken and lost to the sea.

But for a moment, as you hold a seashell in your hand, you are transported to another world. A world of infinite beauty, where even the smallest of things can fill your heart with wonder. And like the hummingbird, the seashell is a reminder of the boundless creativity and power of the natural world, a world that is infinitely complex and endlessly fascinating, a world that we can never fully comprehend, but can only marvel at from afar.

Prompt : Describe the style of writing used in Brian Doyle’s story ‘Joyas Voladoras’

Result: The style of writing used in Brian Doyle’s story “Joyas Voladoras” is characterized by a poetic and contemplative tone, rich in vivid imagery and metaphor. The author employs a variety of literary devices, such as repetition, alliteration, and metaphor, to create a lyrical and rhythmic prose. He uses short, declarative sentences that build upon each other to create a sense of momentum and urgency. The writing is deeply empathetic and humanistic, with an emphasis on the interconnectedness of all life. The story is structured around a series of vignettes that explore the lives of various creatures, and the author seamlessly weaves together scientific facts and poetic observations to create a seamless narrative. Overall, the writing is marked by a sense of wonder and reverence for the natural world, and a deep appreciation for the mysteries of life.

Prompt : Describe the structure of the sentences in Brian Doyle’s story ‘Joyas Voladoras’

Result: The structure of the sentences in Brian Doyle’s story “Joyas Voladoras” varies considerably throughout the text. The author employs a range of sentence types and lengths, from short and simple to long and complex, to create a varied and engaging rhythm. Many of the sentences are relatively short, with simple subject-verb-object constructions that convey factual information and move the narrative forward. However, the author also uses longer, more complex sentences that incorporate multiple clauses and ideas, often punctuated by commas or semicolons, to create a sense of richness and depth. These longer sentences are often filled with vivid imagery and metaphor, and serve to expand upon the themes and ideas introduced in the shorter sentences. The author also makes use of repetition, both at the sentence level and throughout the text, to create a sense of unity and coherence. Overall, the sentence structure in “Joyas Voladoras” is flexible and dynamic, allowing the author to convey both factual information and poetic observations in a compelling and engaging way.