Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Continuing Confusion Of The Fighting Words Doctrine, Melody L. Hurdle
R.A.V. V. City Of St. Paul: The Continuing Confusion Of The Fighting Words Doctrine, Melody L. Hurdle
Vanderbilt Law Review
Communication contributes to the marketplace of ideasI which is the only way to promote the discovery of truth in society. The importance of communication has led the United States Supreme Court to herald freedom of expression as "the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom." Indeed, the Court protects few other constitutional rights with such fervor. First Amendment protection is not absolute, however, and the United States Supreme Court consistently has asserted that certain forms or classes of expression may be regulated without violating the Constitution. Generally speaking, the Court has carved exceptions to First Amendment …
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
The First Amendment: When The Government Must Make Content-Based Choices, Erwin Chemerinsky
Cleveland State Law Review
Thus, I focus my attention on the problem of the First Amendment when the government must make content-based choices. I want to divide my remarks into four parts. I begin by reviewing the traditional bedrock rule of the First Amendment: The government cannot regulate speech based on its content. Second, I identify a broad range of cases where this rule cannot apply because the government must make content-based choices. Third, I suggest that the usual First Amendment principles are not helpful in analyzing these cases. Finally, I offer some initial thoughts about directions for dealing with this problem.