Constitutional Law: Labor Law: Recent Ramifications of the Application of Free Speech Doctrines to the Protection of Picketing

1942 ◽  
Vol 40 (8) ◽  
pp. 1200
Author(s):  
William H. Kinsey
Keyword(s):  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Labor Law

“The Dilemma to a Free People”: Justice Robert Jackson, Walter Bagehot, and the Creation of a Conservative Jurisprudence

2002 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Free Speech Rights ◽  
Free People ◽  
The U.S

Even today, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) strikes students of constitutional law as a vexing factual situation. The problems the case posed for the High Court are all the more daunting considering its historical context, directly following the nation's confrontation with Nazism and standing on the cusp of the Cold War against Communism. In the broader view, most observers would locate the decision within the ascendance of liberal protection for free speech rights occurring over the second half of the twentieth century. But progressive accounts should not be allowed to mask the contemporary momentousness for the justices hearing the case. Indeed, in this constitutional conflict over the speech of a rabble-rousing priest was lodged a sober question about the polity's health at that time and the preferred response to the nation's need.

THE POLITICS OF FREE SPEECH

2004 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 23-47
Author(s):  
Scott D. Gerber
Keyword(s):  
Deliberative Democracy ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
Free Theory ◽  
Legal Theorist ◽  
The U.S

Freedom of speech long has been regarded as one of the “preferred freedoms” in the United States: one of the freedoms the U.S. Supreme Court deems “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” However, what freedom of speech does—and should—mean is a highly charged question in American constitutional law. I will explore this question by examining how several prominent constitutional theorists have proposed particular approaches to free speech law in order to further their political objectives. I will examine the free speech theories of the nation's leading feminist legal theorist (regarding pornography), critical race theorists (regarding hate speech), libertarian (regarding commercial speech), and legal republican (regarding deliberative democracy). I also will discuss the principal criticisms of each of these theories, whether the courts have been influenced by any of them, and, in conclusion, whether it is possible to advance a nonpolitical (i.e., a purely law-based or value-free) theory of free speech.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document