UID:
almahu_9948177693902882
Format:
1 online resource (xxvi, 383 pages) :
,
digital, PDF file(s).
ISBN:
9781108674188 (ebook)
Content:
The standard account of the First Amendment presupposes that the Supreme Court has consistently expanded the scope of free speech rights over time. This account holds true in some areas, but not in others. In this illuminating work, Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr acknowledges that the contemporary Supreme Court rigorously enforces the rules against content and viewpoint discrimination for those who possess the wherewithal to speak but when citizens need the government's assistance to speak - for example, access to public property for protest - free speech rights have declined. Instead of using open-ended balancing tests, the Roberts and Rehnquist Courts have opted for bright line, categorical rules that minimize judicial discretion. Opportunities for democratic engagement could be enhanced, however, if the federal courts returned to the Warren Court's balancing approach and vested federal judges with discretionary authority to require government to assist would-be speakers. This book should be read by anyone concerned with free speech and its place in democratic self-government.
Note:
Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 09 Aug 2019).
,
The contraction under the Roberts and Rehnquist courts of the government's First Amendment duty to facilitate private speech related to democratic self-governance -- The problem defined : could the Selma march take place today? -- The ever-expanding First Amendment universe theory reconsidered : the iImportant, but underappreciated, growing relationship of property to speech -- The evolution in First Amendment theory and doctrine from facilitating speech to constraining judicial discretion in First Amendment cases -- Tracing the evolving boundaries of the First Amendment : an overview of the arguments and proofs that follow -- Facilitating democratic deliberation by providing would-be speakers with access to public property for expressive activities : a positive First Amendment -- Right of access to government property under the Warren and Burger courts -- The public forum and time, place, and manner doctrines vest government with broad discretion to limit or prohibit speech activity on public property -- Toward a renewed commitment to making public space reliably available for speech activity -- The Warren court's recognition of free speech easements to private property under the First Amendment -- In defense of Logan Valley : the affirmative case for deploying the First Amendment to create mandatory free speech easements to certain kinds of tangible and intangible private property -- The profound dangers of casting a blind eye on the unlimited power of social media and Internet search engine providers to censor speech : why continued reliance on self-regulation presents a clear and present danger to the process of democratic deliberation and hence to democratic self-government itself -- The Warren and Burger courts' contingent protection of government employees as citizen-participants in the process of democratic self-government -- Reduced protection for government workers' speech activity under the Rehnquist and Roberts courts -- The paradox of conferring comprehensive First Amendment protection against government employers retaliating against a government employee based on the employee's partisan affiliation -- The need to provide enhanced protection to government workers who facilitate democratic accountability by engaging in whistleblowing activity -- The First Amendment as a guarantor of academic freedom in public colleges and universities -- One step forward, two steps back : the Supreme Court's jurisprudential efforts to extend academic freedom principles to primary, middle, and secondary public schools -- The difficulty of calibrating "disruption" to the learning environment as a legal test and the concomitant risk of regulatory creep -- The Warren court and transborder speech : tentative recognition and modest, but inconsistent, First Amendment protection -- The Burger court and transborder speech : retrenchment and grudging acknowledgment of the First Amendment's application to transborder speech -- Retrogression : the Rehnquist and Roberts courts' failure to afford meaningful protection to transborder speech activity -- Mapping the First Amendment on to transborder speech : the relevance of Meiklejohn's democratic self-government theory of freedom of expression -- The Warren and Burger courts : limited but meaningful protection for newsgathering activities -- The abject failure of the Rehnquist and Roberts to deploy the First Amendment to protect newsgathering activities -- Growing threats to newsgathering activity and the concomitant need for a strong judicial response to protect the ability of journalists to provide the citizenry with the information necessary to hold government accountable -- The inevitability of balancing legitimate governmental interests and privacy against the need to facilitate newsgathering and reporting activities should not render the press clause a constitutional nullity -- The growing problem of state governments using their broad regulatory powers over the professions to regulate professional speech to advance ideological, rather than bona fide regulatory, objectives -- Efforts to propagandize the body politic via social media : the problem of stealth government speech -- Police and prosecutors use trespass, breach of peace/disorderly conduct and unlawful assembly laws to burden or prohibit public protest -- The Warren and Burger courts' efforts to use the First Amendment to prohibit the abuse of trespass, breach of peace/disorderly conduct, and unlawful assembly laws to silence unpopular protesters -- The difficulties associated with establishing meaningful judicial review of discretionary police and prosecutor powers to charge protesters with conduct-based crimes -- The empirical claim : speech rights have clearly declined in some important areas over time -- The doctrinal claim : the federal courts can and should do better to advance expressive freedoms in the contemporary United States -- The normative claim : fear of judicial discretion in First Amendment cases and the systematic failure to advance critically important First Amendment values.
Additional Edition:
Print version: ISBN 9781108481540
Language:
English
Subjects:
Political Science
URL:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108674188
Bookmarklink
