Speech Platforms. (Government Speech: The Government's Ability to Compel and Restrict Speech) Speech Platforms. (Government Speech: The Government's Ability to Compel and Restrict Speech)

Speech Platforms. (Government Speech: The Government's Ability to Compel and Restrict Speech‪)‬

Case Western Reserve Law Review 2011, Summer, 61, 4

    • € 2,99
    • € 2,99

Beschrijving uitgever

The state plays different roles, and free speech doctrine should (and sometimes does) respect these roles. We properly insist (with some categorical exceptions) that the state not regulate private speech based on subject matter or point of view. If private speakers want to praise the Nazis or condemn homosexuality, the state has no place stopping them, even if firmly convinced these ideas are wrong. Why we have such firm protection for speech we abhor is a matter of much debate. To some extent, it's because we don't trust the state to make content-based judgments consistently as a matter of principle; we fear that too often it will be merely playing favorites, helping friends and harming enemies. One thing we know is that the state holds a monopoly over legitimate coercive force, and that when it jails or fines, it possesses the ability to squelch speech, and not merely channel it to another outlet. We have similarly strict rules against the state's drawing content-based lines in public places where people have traditionally gathered. We may build streets primarily for ease of movement and parks primarily for recreation, but citizens also use both to meet and discuss matters of the day, to face ideas with which they may not be familiar (and sometimes find quite odd). We can always walk by or away from such speech, so we are never captive in these settings. Even if streets and parks are technically "owned" by the state and not by private capital, they are held as a kind of public trust. (That the state is really "we the people" acting via delegation can't get us very far; exploding the public/private line in this sense would raise difficulties in any area of free speech law, regarding whether the state is acting in a sovereign/regulatory or some other capacity.) We have made a collective decision--perhaps in part to ensure that not only the wealthy have adequate avenues for their ideas--to reserve some property as space where the state may not regulate speech based on content.

GENRE
Professioneel en technisch
UITGEGEVEN
2011
22 juni
TAAL
EN
Engels
LENGTE
21
Pagina's
UITGEVER
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
GROOTTE
274,6
kB

Meer boeken van Case Western Reserve Law Review

How Judges Think (Book Review) How Judges Think (Book Review)
2009
Who's Afraid of Philanthrocapitalism? Who's Afraid of Philanthrocapitalism?
2011
Diachronic Constitutionalism: A Remedy for the Court's Originalist Fixation. Diachronic Constitutionalism: A Remedy for the Court's Originalist Fixation.
2010
When Romer Met Feeney: Why the Second Sentence of the Ohio Marriage Amendment Violates Equal Protection. When Romer Met Feeney: Why the Second Sentence of the Ohio Marriage Amendment Violates Equal Protection.
2011
From the Bottle to the Grave: Realizing a Human Right to Breastfeeding Through Global Health Policy. From the Bottle to the Grave: Realizing a Human Right to Breastfeeding Through Global Health Policy.
2010
Institutional Investors and Their Role in Corporate Governance: Reflections by a "Recovering" Corporate Governance Lawyer (Institutional Investors in Corporate Governance: Heroes Or Villains) Institutional Investors and Their Role in Corporate Governance: Reflections by a "Recovering" Corporate Governance Lawyer (Institutional Investors in Corporate Governance: Heroes Or Villains)
2009