The Disappearing First Amendment

Shows that while the Supreme Court enforces some First Amendment rights vigorously, it often fails to protect ordinary citizens' expressive freedoms.

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.

What is Wrong with the First Amendment? argues that the US love affair with the First Amendment has mutated into free speech idolatry. Free speech has been placed on so high a pedestal that it is almost automatically privileged over privacy, fair trials, equality and public health, even protecting depictions of animal cruelty and violent video games sold to children. At the same time, dissent is unduly stifled and religious minorities are burdened. The First Amendment benefits the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. By contrast, other Western democracies provide more reasonable accommodations between free speech and other values though their protections of dissent, and religious minorities are also inadequate. Professor Steven H. Shiffrin argues that US free speech extremism is not the product of broad cultural factors, but rather political ideologies developed after the 1950s. He shows that conservatives and liberals have arrived at similar conclusions for different political reasons.

In a society that prides itself on the most expansive legal guarantees of free speech in history, why are so many individuals and groups frustrated by the American system of freedom of expression? As the public sphere continues to be redefined by advances in technology, and new debates about this technology crop up daily, the time has come to move from reflexive discussions about the value of more speech to a detailed assessment of the real power and limits of speech. Why, this volume asks, does the First Amendment--the very document intended to ensure the freedom of U.S. citizens--need to be freed? And from what? Long an icon in American law, politics, and journalism, the First Amendment--and the potential and real dilemmas with which it presents us--have only recently begun to be scrutinized. Challenging the idea that the only champions of free speech are traditional liberal theorists who oppose alternatives to the mainstream interpretation of the First Amendment, the contributors to this volume, among them such prominent thinkers as Frederick Schauer, Owen Fiss, and Cass Sunstein, explore new and provocative ways to think about freedom of expression. By reformulating traditional liberal and libertarian approaches to the First Amendment, this volume convincingly disputes the notion that those who question an unwavering reliance on free- and-open competition between individuals to produce free expression are necessarily enemies of free speech. It argues instead that these alleged enemies can in fact be champions as well.

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for first invoking the phrase "clear and present danger." Although the decision upheld the conviction of an individual for criticizing the draft during World War I, it also laid the foundation for our nation's robust protection of free speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The Free Speech Century, two of America's leading First Amendment scholars, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, have gathered a group of the nation's leading constitutional scholars--Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, among others--to evaluate the evolution of free speech doctrine since Schenk and to assess where it might be headed in the future. Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a signal development in the history of constitutional democracies--remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement, remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection it has afforded since the 1960s. Over the course of The First Amendment Century, judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what speech should be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the decision that laid the foundation for America's free speech tradition, The Free Speech Century will serve as an essential resource for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time and why it is so critical both for the United States and for the world today.

Boxing, porn, and the beginnings of movie censorship -- The rise of salacious cinema -- State regulations emerge -- Mutual and the capacity for evil -- War, nudity, and birth control -- Self-regulation reemerges -- Midnight movies and sanctioned cinema -- Sound enters the debate -- Tension increases between free speech and state censorship -- Threats from abroad and domestic disturbances -- Outlaws and miracles -- State censorship statutes on the defense -- Devil in the details : film and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments -- Dirty words : profanity and the patently offensive -- Filthy pictures : obscenity from nudie cuties to fetish films -- The porno chic : from Danish loops to Deep throat -- Just not here : content regulation through zoning -- Is censorship necessary? -- The politics of profanity

In this original, provocative contribution to the debate over economic inequality, Ganesh Sitaraman argues that a strong and sizable middle class is a prerequisite for America’s constitutional system. For most of Western history, Sitaraman argues, constitutional thinkers assumed economic inequality was inevitable and inescapable—and they designed governments to prevent class divisions from spilling over into class warfare. The American Constitution is different. Compared to Europe and the ancient world, America was a society of almost unprecedented economic equality, and the founding generation saw this equality as essential for the preservation of America’s republic. Over the next two centuries, generations of Americans fought to sustain the economic preconditions for our constitutional system. But today, with economic and political inequality on the rise, Sitaraman says Americans face a choice: Will we accept rising economic inequality and risk oligarchy or will we rebuild the middle class and reclaim our republic? The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution is a tour de force of history, philosophy, law, and politics. It makes a compelling case that inequality is more than just a moral or economic problem; it threatens the very core of our constitutional system.

This volume presents Scanlon's classic essays in political philosophy written between 1969 and 1999.