Nonsense and the Freedom of Speech: What Meaning Means for the First Amendment

Abstract

A great deal of everyday expression is, strictly speaking, nonsense. But courts and scholars have done little to consider whether or why such meaningless speech, like nonrepresentational art, falls within “the freedom of speech.” If, as many suggest, meaning is what separates speech from sound and expression from conduct, then the constitutional case for nonsense is complicated. And because nonsense is so common, the case is also important — artists like Lewis Carroll and Jackson Pollock are not the only putative “speakers” who should be concerned about the outcome. This Article is the first to explore thoroughly the relationship between nonsense and the freedom of speech; in doing so, it suggests ways to determine what “meaning” means for First Amendment purposes. The Article begins by demonstrating the scope and constitutional salience of meaningless speech, showing that nonsense is multifarious, widespread, and sometimes intertwined with traditional First Amendment values like autonomy, the marketplace of ideas, and democracy. The second part of the Article argues that exploring nonsense can illuminate the meaning of meaning itself. This, too, is an important task, for although free speech discourse often relies on the concept of meaning to chart the Amendment’s scope, courts and scholars have done relatively little to establish what it entails. Analytic philosophers, meanwhile, have spent the past century doing little else. Their efforts — echoes of which can already be heard in First Amendment doctrine — suggest that free speech doctrine is best served by finding meaning in the way words are used, rather than in their relationship to extra-linguistic concepts.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

Nonsense and illusions of thought.Herman Cappelen - 2013 - Philosophical Perspectives 27 (1):22-50.
A Defence of Free Speech.Richard McDonough - 1989 - In Cedric Pan Jaganathan Muraleenathan (ed.), Thinking about Democracy. pp. 61-84.
United States v Stevens: Gnawing Away at Freedom of Speech or Paving the Way for Animal Rights? [REVIEW]Irina Knopp - 2011 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 24 (3):331-349.
Freedom of communicative action.Lawrence B. Solum - 1989 - Northwestern University Law Review 83 (1):54-135.
Judicial Epistemology of Free Speech Through Ancient Lenses.Uladzislau Belavusau - 2010 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 23 (2):165-183.
Does Freedom of Speech Include Hate Speech?Caleb Yong - 2011 - Res Publica 17 (4):385-403.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-04-12

Downloads
22 (#606,933)

6 months
2 (#668,348)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references