Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Courting Censorship, Philip A. Hamburger
Courting Censorship, Philip A. Hamburger
Faculty Scholarship
Has Supreme Court doctrine invited censorship? Not deliberately, of course. Still, it must be asked whether current doctrine has courted censorship — in the same way one might speak of it courting disaster.
The Court has repeatedly declared its devotion to the freedom of speech, so the suggestion that its doctrines have failed to block censorship may seem surprising. The Court’s precedents, however, have left room for government suppression, even to the point of seeming to legitimize it.
This Article is especially critical of the state action doctrine best known from Blum v. Yaretsky. That doctrine mistakenly elevates coercion …
Education Is Speech: Parental Free Speech In Education, Philip A. Hamburger
Education Is Speech: Parental Free Speech In Education, Philip A. Hamburger
Faculty Scholarship
Education is speech. This simple point is profoundly important. Yet it rarely gets attention in the First Amendment and education scholarship.
Among the implications are those for public schools. All the states require parents to educate their minor children and at the same time offer parents educational support in the form of state schooling. States thereby press parents to take government educational speech in place of their own. Under both the federal and state speech guarantees, states cannot pressure parents, either directly or through conditions, to give up their own educational speech, let alone substitute state educational speech. This abridges …
Government Endorsement: A Reply To Nelson Tebbe's Government Nonendorsement, Abner S. Greene
Government Endorsement: A Reply To Nelson Tebbe's Government Nonendorsement, Abner S. Greene
Faculty Scholarship
In this response to Nelson Tebbe’s Government Nonendorsement, Abner Greene continues to develop his “thick perfectionist” view of government speech, arguing that the state may use its speech powers to advance various views of the good, from left, center,
Government Speech 2.0, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton
Government Speech 2.0, Danielle K. Citron, Helen Norton
Faculty Scholarship
New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these …
(Mis)Attribution Symposium: Government Speech, Abner S. Greene
(Mis)Attribution Symposium: Government Speech, Abner S. Greene
Faculty Scholarship
In this Essay, I evaluate three issues of attribution and misattribution that arise in the so-called area of "government speech."' First, I explore when an individual might have a constitutional claim for misattribution by the state. Second, I discuss the citizen's interest in proper attribution by the government when it is speaking. Third, I consider the government's interest in avoiding expression being improperly attributed to it. This concern arises less often than is commonly assumed; what many scholars (and governments) claim to be a state interest in avoiding attribution or endorsement is in fact a state interest in not providing …
Not For Attribution: Government's Interest In Protecting The Integrity Of Its Own Expression, Helen L. Norton
Not For Attribution: Government's Interest In Protecting The Integrity Of Its Own Expression, Helen L. Norton
Faculty Scholarship
Public entities increasingly maintain that the First Amendment permits them to ensure that private speakers’ views are not mistakenly attributed to the government. Consider, for example, Virginia’s efforts to ban the Sons of Confederate Veterans’ display of the Confederate flag logo on state-sponsored specialty license plates. Seeking to remain neutral in the ongoing debate over whether the Confederate flag is a symbol of “hate” or “heritage,” Virginia argued that the state would be wrongly perceived as endorsing the flag if the logo appeared on a state-issued plate adorned by the identifier “VIRGINIA.” The Fourth Circuit was unpersuaded, holding that the …