Supreme Court decision on violent video games was based on the First Amendment, not scientific evidence.

2014 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
pp. 306-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad J. Bushman ◽  
Deana Pollard-Sacks
Keyword(s):  
Video Games ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Violent Video Games

Journalism on the Rack: Regulating Newspaper Vending Machines

1989 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-38
Author(s):  
Wallace B. Eberhard
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Free Press ◽  
Vending Machines ◽  
Public Property ◽  
Definitive Statement

An examination of longstanding legal struggles between municipalities and newspapers over placement of newspaper vending boxes on public property culminated in a June 1988 Supreme Court decision. But the Cleveland Plain Dealer case was by no means a definitive statement on the free press issue, and the author predicts continuing litigation pitting local governments and newspapers on First Amendment ground.

The Moral Core of U.S. Constitutional Bans on Hate Speech Codes

1998 ◽  
pp. 33-37
Author(s):  
Norman Fischer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Speech Code ◽  
Stanford University ◽  
Speech Codes ◽  
Moral Basis ◽  
The U.S

The striking down of the Stanford University Hate Speech Code on February 27, 1995 demonstrated the strong animus in U.S. First Amendment decisions against such codes. Judge Peter Stone, applying the U.S. Supreme Court decision in R.A.V. ruled, first, that the Stanford Code was too broad, and second, that the state cannot censor content by picking out some "fighting words" to prohibit. I argue that the moral basis for banning overbroad codes combines a nonconsequential emphasis on the value of liberty with a consequentialist analysis of what happens when liberty that should be protected is entangled in codes reflecting liberty that should not be protected. In contrast, the moral basis for content neutrality does not depend on consequentialist thinking, but shows that the very search for a moral basis for banning the purest acts of hateful speech logically makes the speech protected by elevating it to a viewpoint.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document