The Public Forum: Minimum Access, Equal Access, and the First Amendment

1975 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 117
Author(s):  
Sheila M. Cahill
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Equal Access ◽  
Public Forum ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals Protect the Filter Bubbles

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Dames
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Public Forum ◽  
The Public ◽  
Social Media Platforms ◽  
Filter Bubbles ◽  
Forum Analysis ◽  
Public Forums

In 2018, Knight v. Trump sparked discussion about the boundaries between government and citizen speech on social media. Some scholars argued that the courts erred in their decision to characterize the speech in question as government speech. Others argued that the court decided correctly and claimed that the use of forum analysis was necessary to protect both the health of our democracy and the First Amendment rights of social media users. Within the context of algorithmic curation of social media feeds, this article argues that (1) social media platforms are not designated public forums due to the algorithmic curation of online user speech, (2) due to this, the public forum doctrine should not have been applied to the Knight v. Trump case, (3) despite this, user speech rights should be protected online. It also reviews proposed models of thinking that could address unresolved issues of the case.

The Public Forum

2019 ◽  
pp. 69-90
Author(s):  
Timothy Zick
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Law And Order ◽  
Public Forum ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Square ◽  
The People ◽  
1960S And 1970S ◽  
The Government ◽  
The 1960S

This chapter examines concerns relating to preserving access to public properties for the purpose of facilitating freedom of expression. Historically, speakers and groups have fought to obtain and preserve First Amendment rights to access and use what are referred to as “public forums”—places that the government owns or controls, but that are held in trust for the people for the purpose of exercising First Amendment rights. The “law and order” mantra of the Trump Era has revived concerns, dating in particular from the 1960s and 1970s, about preserving speakers’ access to public places including streets and parks. Government “law and order” policies and actions, along with various other access limits, raise concerns about the continued viability of the public forum. In addition, during the Trump Era, issues have arisen with regard to speakers’ access to places in the “modern public square,” including official social media sites. President Trump’s decision to block several critics from the comment portion of his Twitter page is only the most prominent example of this new access concern, which will affect dissenters’ ability to communicate with an increasing number of public officials. Preserving access to traditional and digital forums will be critical to maintaining a culture of dissent.

Psychology in the Public Forum: The Psychologist and Organized Labor.

1984 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 428-428
Author(s):  
Patricia J. Aletky ◽  
Beverly H. Hitchins
Keyword(s):  
Organized Labor ◽  
Public Forum ◽  
The Public

scholarly journals Interpretation of Consent Decrees and Microsoft v. United States I: Making Law in the Shadow of Negotiation

2001 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lloyd C. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Consent Decree ◽  
Public Forum ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private Ordering ◽  
Negotiated Settlements ◽  
Consent Decrees ◽  
The Law ◽  
Substantive Law

 People negotiate agreements "in the shadow of the law," whether in the private ordering of affairs such as drafting contracts or in the public forum of settling lawsuits.[1] A reverse phenomenon, however, has gone largely unnoticed: judges occasionally declare law in the shadow of negotiated settlements. In interpreting the terms of a consent decree[2] when the parties themselves cannot agree on what obligations such terms impose, the judge may determine that both the words and the parties' own intentions are so ambiguous that the words must be interpreted in light of the substantive law that gave rise to the plaintiffs' claim. This writer has previously contended that the meaning of an ambiguous term should be determined, in part, "by reference to the constitutional or statutory rights sought to be vindicated in the litigation." Even if the law is somewhat uncertain, part of the judge's interpretive effort should be to determine which interpretation "will best serve the policies of the relevant law."[3] It appears that the federal courts, at least, have adopted this position.[4]

scholarly journals Stings and Scams: ‘Fake News,’ the First Amendment, and the New Activist Journalism

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael C. Dorf ◽  
Sidney Tarrow
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Political Activism ◽  
Technological Innovations ◽  
Fake News ◽  
Planned Parenthood ◽  
Investigative Reporting ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Media ◽  
Sting Operation

Constitutional law, technological innovations, and the rise of a cultural “right to know” have recently combined to yield “fake news,” as illustrated by an anti-abortion citizen-journalist sting operation that scammed Planned Parenthood. We find that the First Amendment, as construed by the Supreme Court, offers scant protection for activist journalists to go undercover to uncover wrongdoing, while providing substantial protection for the spread of falsehoods. By providing activists the means to reach sympathetic slices of the public, the emergence of social media has returned journalism to its roots in political activism, at the expense of purportedly objective and truthful investigative reporting. But the rise of “truthiness” — that is, falsehoods with the ring of truth, diffused through new forms of communication — threatens the integrity of the media. How to respond to these contradictions is a growing problem for advocates of free speech and liberal values more generally.

Negotiating Food Heritage Interpretations: Experiences of a Project at the Estonian National Museum

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-134
Author(s):  
Anu Kannike ◽  
Ester Bardone
Keyword(s):  
Research And Development ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Development Project ◽  
Food Culture ◽  
National Museum ◽  
Public Forum ◽  
Non Profit ◽  
The Public

Abstract The article examines varied interpretations of food heritage in contemporary Estonia, relying on the authors’ experiences of a three-year research and development project at the Estonian National Museum (ENM). The study focuses on the museum researchers’ collaboration with different stakeholders, representing small entrepreneurs and the public and non-profit sectors. The authors tackle the partners’ expectations and outcomes of diverse cooperational initiatives and the opportunities and challenges of a contemporary museum as a public forum for discussions on cultural heritage. The project revealed that diverse, complementary, and contested food heritage interpretations exist side-by-side on the Estonian foodscape. Additionally, the project enabled the authors to become better aware of the researcher’s role in the heritagisation process and of the museum as a place for negotiating the meanings and values of food culture.

Displaying Race for Dollars: Racial Realism in Media and Entertainment

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Skrentny
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Professional Sports ◽  
The Other ◽  
Public Financing ◽  
Sports Teams ◽  
The Public ◽  
Television Shows ◽  
Employment Sector ◽  
Racial Realism

This chapter explores racial realism in the advertising and entertainment industries (movies, TV, and professional sports). These cases are distinctive because they are almost totally focused on racial signaling—the image of the worker is very much the product that the employers are selling. Racial signaling is thus common in all of them, though rarer in sports than the other sectors, especially in the last few decades. Hence, the chapter shows that civil rights law does not authorize these practices. It also examines the possibility that television shows' dependence on use of federally regulated airwaves, and sports teams' dependence on the public financing of stadiums might provide legal openings for racial realism in these sectors. Since this employment sector is about expression, this chapter also explores possible First Amendment defenses for these employers, and shows that at least one court has found a constitutionally protected freedom to discriminate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document