Free-Expression Rationales, Truth, and the Marketplace of Ideas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jared Schroeder
Keyword(s):  
Free Expression ◽  
Marketplace Of Ideas

scholarly journals Captive Audience Meetings and Forced Listening

2008 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 694-718 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Slinn
Keyword(s):  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Union Organizing ◽  
Labour Law ◽  
Marketplace Of Ideas ◽  
Labour Relations ◽  
American Experience ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The U.S

Widespread adoption of mandatory representation votes and express protection of employer speech invite employer anti-union campaigns during union organizing, including employer-held captive audience meetings. Therefore, the problem of whether and how to restrict employers’ captive audience communications during union organizing is of renewed relevance in Canada. Captive meetings are a long-standing feature of American labour relations. This article considers how treatment of captive meetings evolved in the U.S., including the notion of employee choice; the “marketplace of ideas” view of expression dominating the American debate; and the central role of the contest between constitutional and statutory rights. It also considers the concept of “forced listening” and the associated Captive Audience doctrine in U.S. constitutional law and considers its possible application to captive audience meetings and the Charter definition of free expression. Finally, it offers suggestions about how Canadian labour law can benefit from lessons learned from the American experience.

scholarly journals Guidelines Without Lines, Communities Without Borders: The Marketplace of Ideas and Digital Manifest Destiny in Social Media Platform Policies

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 205630512092662
Author(s):  
Jessica Maddox ◽  
Jennifer Malson
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Manifest Destiny ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Marketplace Of Ideas ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Media Platform ◽  
Community Standards ◽  
User Friendly

When faced with conflicts, social media platforms harken back to their front-facing, user-friendly documents. These documents, often called community standards, or something similar, lay out the practices allowed on their sites. It is well documented in legal scholarship how technology companies incorporate particular First Amendment jurisprudence into these community standards documents, and this work aims to empirically examine this claim. Specifically, we were interested in how the backbone of American free expression—the marketplace of ideas metaphor—was incorporated into these governing documents. We conducted a textual analysis of five US-based social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and Tumblr) to analyze how the marketplace of ideas metaphor may be invoked. We found these documents do rely heavily on the metaphor for presenting governing strategies. They also rely heavily on an oft-referenced ambiguous moderation line and the idea of a singular, global, borderless community, both of which bolster the marketplace metaphor. Given this, US-based social media platforms are holding the rest of the world to US-based ideas of free expression, thus engaging in digital manifest destiny.

The Supreme Court Defines the Marketplace of Ideas

1996 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Wat Hopkins
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Marketplace Of Ideas ◽  
Regulatory Scheme ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The U.S

The marketplace of ideas metaphor is the model most called upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in the resolution of free-expression cases. Justices have used the theory in the adjudication of virtually every area of First Amendment law, despite increasing attacks on the theory. For the most part, however, the Court does not recognize a single, universal marketplace of ideas, but numerous mini-marketplaces, each with its own dynamics, parameters, regulatory scheme, and audience.

Self-Regulation and Human Progress

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Osborne
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Mutual Influence ◽  
Free Market ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Trial And Error ◽  
Human History ◽  
Economic Context ◽  
The Right ◽  
First Time

Does humanity progress primarily through leaders organizing and directing followers, or through trial and error by individuals free to chart their own path? For most of human history ruling classes had the capacity and the desire to tightly regiment society, to the general detriment of progress. But beginning in the 1500s, Europeans developed a series of arguments for simply leaving well enough alone. First in the form of the scientific method, then in the form of free expression, and finally in the form of the continuously, spontaneously reordered free market, people began to accept that progress is hard, and requires that an immense number of mistakes be tolerated so that we may learn from them. This book tells the story of the development of these three ideas, and for the first time tells of the mutual influence among them. It outlines the rise, and dramatic triumph, of each of these self-regulating systems, followed by a surprising rise in skepticism, especially in the economic context. Such skepticism in the 20th century was frequently costly and sometimes catastrophic. Under the right conditions, which are more frequent than generally believed, self-regulating systems in which participants organize themselves are superior. We should accept their turbulence in exchange for the immense progress they generate.

Collaborating for Innovation

2019 ◽  
pp. 586-609
Author(s):  
Peter G. Klein ◽  
Mark D. Packard ◽  
Karen Schnatterly
Keyword(s):  
Organizational Structure ◽  
Organizational Design ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Spillover Effects ◽  
Employee Motivation ◽  
Corporate Entrepreneurship ◽  
Marketplace Of Ideas ◽  
Collaborative Innovation ◽  
Barriers To Collaboration ◽  
Innovation Outcomes

This chapter looks inside the firm at how organizational design affects collaboration in pursuit of corporate entrepreneurship or “intrapreneurship.” It shows how the intrafirm “marketplace” of ideas, employees, and resources can be strategically configured to encourage or inhibit collaborative innovation. The chapter focuses on the key structural dimensions of autonomy, sponsorship, and incentives. Complementarities between these dimensions create spillover effects that produce unique innovation outcomes by mitigating barriers to collaboration such as knowledge problems, resource constraints, and employee motivation. Illustrating configurations of these dimensions with company examples, the chapter shows how organizational design affects intrapreneurship and offers suggestions on how firms might strategically align their organizational structure with their intrapreneurial strategy.

FREE EXPRESSION OR EQUAL SPEECH?

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-169
Author(s):  
Teresa M. Bejan
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Association ◽  
Classical Liberal ◽  
Freedom Of Thought ◽  
The Right ◽  
Equal Right ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Ideal

AbstractThe classical liberal doctrine of free expression asserts the priority of speech as an extension of the freedom of thought. Yet its critics argue that freedom of expression, itself, demands the suppression of the so-called “silencing speech” of racists, sexists, and so on, as a threat to the equal expressive rights of others. This essay argues that the claim to free expression must be distinguished from claims to equal speech. The former asserts an equal right to express one’s thoughts without interference; the latter the right to address others, and to receive a hearing and consideration from them, in turn. I explore the theory of equal speech in light of the ancient Athenian practice of isegoria and argue that the equality demanded is not distributive but relational: an equal speaker’s voice should be counted as “on a par” with others. This ideal better captures critics’ concerns about silencing speech than do their appeals to free expression. Insofar as epistemic and status-harms provide grounds for the suppression and exclusion of some speech and speakers, the ideal of equal speech is more closely connected with the freedom of association than of thought. Noticing this draws attention to the continuing—and potentially problematic—importance of exclusion in constituting effective sites of equal speech today.

scholarly journals Local deuteration enables NMR observation of methyl groups in proteins from eukaryotic and cell‐free expression systems.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abhinav Dubey ◽  
Nikolay Stoyanov ◽  
Thibault Viennet ◽  
Sandeep Chhabra ◽  
Shantha Elter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Free Expression ◽  
Methyl Groups ◽  
Expression Systems
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document