Courts are divided as to whether abortion informed consent mandates violate the First Amendment. This article argues that given the doctor's and patient's unique expertise, the patient's strong interests in autonomous decision making, and the fact that these laws regulate speech, rather than conduct, heighted or strict scrutiny should apply to such mandates.

Terrorist attacks throughout the world and particularly within the United States have given rise to a new chapter in the ongoing debate over liberty versus security. The most recent manifestation of this dispute focuses on whether Muslim refugees can be denied entry as a class into the United States, based on their religion alone, for fear they might be harboring potential terrorists. This Essay shows that such a policy cannot be justified under the First Amendment Establishment Clause, as (...) well the United States’ expressed international commitments to preserving international human rights. What can be done is to engage a broader set of investigative approaches that are more likely to provide greater security than any policy focused on religion alone. (shrink)

This commentary proceeds as follows. First, it is argued from both ethical and legal perspectives through an analysis of Court precedents that Etzioni’s has improperly developed a too narrow First Amendment interpretation and conclusion that Apple should comply with the FBI’s demand to provide the FBI with a key to open iPhones. That is, broad First Amendment considerations and not solely narrow First Amendment “compelled speech” or only Fourth Amendment privacy issues are (...) offered and analyzed from both ethical and legal perspectives. A key point here is that broad First Amendment considerations protect, with exceptions, political and ethical discretion space for “Press” organizations to exercise, or not, ethical responsibilities, including rights to publish or not publish information and opinions, rather than compliance with government orders to publish or not publish. Further, Court cases are discussed from both legal and ethical perspectives where the Courts have established that social media organizations such as Facebook and Twitter do and should have broad First Amendment protection of free expression and peaceful assembly as traditional media such as newspapers have. It is suggested that Apple can and should be considered a social media organization. In addition, special First Amendment protection and limitations concerning national security are analyzed. Second, it is suggested that Etzioni’s point that Apple protected its clients soley for “business profitability” reasons is also a too narrow interpretation since there are more complex, mixed, and combined ethical and political-economic reasons for protecting clients and First Amendment protections. Third, the philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s ethics process responsibility framework concerning relationships between ethics and law and the need for an ethics responsibility rather than a compliance approach, which is similar to Brandeis’ legal ethics approach, is compared with and offered as an alternative to Etzioni’s compliance based “Liberal communitarian” approach. It is suggested that the difference between the Rocoeur and Etzioni approaches is similar to the difference between compliance and ethics responsibility process programs in organizations. (shrink)

The recent explosion in advancements of communications technologies poses interesting challenges to courts and theorists interested in developing proper regulations. Continuing the traditional technology-based approach to press regulation risks preventing the newest technologies from filly serving the democratic dialogue. As the press has evolved into an institution and as advances in communication tend toward private rather than public interaction, we must assist community formation and face-to-face interaction, which proved vital to the success ofthe Constitution itself. Unless these new technologies are (...) regulated accordingly, comrnunity and face-to-face interaction risk extinction. (shrink)

The First Amendment to the US Constitution protects commercial speech from government interference. Commercial speech has been defined by the US Supreme Court as speech that proposes a commercial transaction, such as marketing and labeling. Companies that produce products associated with public health harms, such as alcohol, tobacco, and food, thus have a constitutional right to market these products to consumers. This article will examine the evolution of US law related to the protection of commercial speech, often at (...) the expense of public health. It will then identify outstanding questions related to the commercial speech doctrine and the few remaining avenues available in the United States to regulate commercial speech including the use of government speech and addressing deceptive and misleading commercial speech. (shrink)

We are still searching for an adequate theory of the first amendment freedom of speech. Despite a plethora of judicial opinions and scholarly articles, there are fundamental conflicts over the meaning of the words "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." This Article examines the possibility that recent developments in social theory can aid our understanding of the freedom of speech. My thesis is that Jiirgen Habermas' theory of communicative action can serve as the basis (...) for an interpretation of the first amendment that fits the general contours of existing first amendment doctrine and provides a coherent justification for the freedom of speech. Habermas' theory takes as its point of departure the speech act theory developed through contemporary analytic philosophy and linguistics. The central theme of speech act theory is that speech is action; communication coordinates individual behavior through achieving rational understanding. An important corollary is the proposition that communication is intersubjective; speech acts involve both speakers and listeners. In addition, the theory of communicative action makes a distinction between communicative action-oriented to the coordination of behavior through rational agreement-and strategic behavior-the use of speech to manipulate, coerce, or deceive. I argue that a theory of free speech can incorporate this distinction to mark the boundaries of the right to free speech: freedom of speech is freedom to engage in communicative action, not strategic action. Another component of Habermas' theory is the ideal speech situation, in which rational agreement may be reached because distorting factors are excluded; this ideal situation serves as the basis of a principle of equality of communicative opportunity that can give the freedom of speech its fundamental content. Habermas' theory of communicative action provides the basis for my reinterpretation of the first amendment freedom of speech as the freedom of communicative action. This Article has two aims. My first aim is to develop a theory of the meaning of the first amendment from the theory of communicative action. In pursuit of this first goal, the Article assumes a perspective that is internal to the practice of American constitutional law. I argue that Habermas' theory has substantial power to explain and justify first amendment doctrine. Indeed, it is my view that a theory of freedom of speech based on the theory of communicative action, more so than any other theory, provides the best justification for the first amendment while simultaneously providing the best fit with the existing case law. In addition to the development of a theory of the first amendment, this Article has a second aim: From the point of view of the practice of social theory, the current Article is a "thought experiment" designed to test and elaborate Habermas' theory of communicative action. I explore various objections to and ambiguities in the theory of communicative action by taking up the attitude of a participant in the practice of legal interpretation who adopts the theory of communicative action as a practical principle for institutionalization of discourse in the public sphere. It is my hope that this thought experiment will have value in the enterprise of understanding, clarifying, and extending the theory of communicative action. For example, this Article responds to the suggestion that the theory of communicative action should be reformulated as a theory of institutionalized discourse "in the public sphere of a participatory democracy." Part II of this Article begins with a hermeneutic approach to the problem of interpreting the first amendment. Part III explores and criticizes existing theories of the freedom of expression. The theory of communicative action is explicated in Part IV; the implications of that theory for the freedom of speech are explored in Part V. Finally, Part VI applies the results to specific problems in first amendment doctrine, and Part VII draws some conclusions about the implications of this exercise for both first amendment doctrine and the theory of communicative action. (shrink)

In this article I investigate the implications of antirealism, as characterized by Richard Rorty, for First Amendment jurisprudence under the United States Constitution. It is hoped that the implications, while played out in the context of a specific tradition, will have more universal application. In Section 1, Rorty’s ‘pragmatic antirealism’ is briefly outlined. In Section 2, some effects of the elimination of the concept of truth for First Amendment jurisprudence are investigated. Section 3 argues for the (...) conclusion that given the antirealist stance, the Supreme Court’s usage of the true/ false fact distinction is actually an uncritical allowance of viewpoint-based discrimination into speech protection that has potentially far-reaching and restrictive results for important speech. Finally, in Section 4 Rorty’s antirealism is combined with various traditional models of First Amendment analysis to see how it would function. The conclusions aimed at are twofold. First, that Rortian antirealism is compatible with the traditional models underlying First Amendment theory. Second, that a realization that truth is the result of, in Rorty’s words, ‘intra-mundane’ discourse leads to an argument for different and potentially stronger and more farreaching protections to speech. (shrink)

“Sticks and stones will break my bones,” Justice Scalia pronounced from the bench in oral arguments in Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, “but words can never hurt me. That's the First Amendment,” he added. Jay Alan Sekulow, the lawyer for the petitioners, anti-abortion protesters who had been enjoined from moving closer than fifteen feet away from those entering an abortion facility, was obviously pleased by this characterization of the right to free speech, replying, “That's certainly our position on it, (...) and that is exactly correct …”. (shrink)

. Freedom of thought as freedom of expression: Hate crime sentencing enhancement and first amendment theory. Criminal Justice Ethics: Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 29-42.

This book is an interdisciplinary guide to the religion clauses of the First Amendment with a focus on its philosophical foundations, historical developments, and legal and political implications. The volume begins with fundamental questions about God, the nature of belief and worship, conscience, freedom, and their intersections with law. It then traces the history of religious liberty and church-state relations in America through a diverse set of religious and non-religious voices from the seventeenth century to the most recent (...) Supreme Court decisions. The Companion will conclude by addressing legal and political questions concerning the First Amendment and the court cases and controversies surrounding religious liberty today, including the separation of church and state, corporate religious liberty, and constitutional interpretation. This scholarly yet accessible book will introduce students and scholars alike to the main issues concerning the First Amendment and religious liberty, along with offering incisive new insights into one of the most important topics in American culture. (shrink)

Dry examines the U.S. Supreme Court's treatment of the First Amendment freedoms of religion and speech against the founding of the American Constitution and its philosophical underpinnings.

And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others? When people devoid of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealths and the subversion (...) of the state. —Galileo, in the margin of his own copy of Dialogue on the Great World Systems1. (shrink)

From the perspective of free speech theory, both of the central First Amendment values - human autonomy and deliberative democracy - require robust protection for the places and spaces in which speech and public discourse occur. This Article argues that current Supreme Court doctrine does not effectively protect speech from content neutral regulation of place. The problem is that remaining neutral is consistent with policies that would dislocate the very place for the “marketplace of ideas.” Moreover, free speech (...) theory focused on autonomy and deliberative democracy has not adequately addressed the role that place plays in furthering these values. Speech may be, and increasingly in practice is, suppressed by control of the places and spaces where speech occurs. Limitations on public expressions critical of administration policies at Presidential events is a key example of the regulation of speech through the regulation of place. Dissent is increasingly displaced with the consequence that the figure of dissent risks disappearing from public discourse. Employing aspects of Hanna Arendt's political philosophy, this Article argues that we need to re-think and re-articulate the importance of public places for our free speech tradition. Personhood and human autonomy, as well as robust public debate, can only exist and develop in fullest form within social structures that provide public places and spaces for human interaction and discourse. Fundamentally, as Arendt suggests, we protect public appearances for public discourse not simply for its instrumental value for deliberation, but for the intrinsic value of creating persons and citizens in their fullest form. (shrink)

The interpretation of the US Constitution by the Supreme Court of the US has often focused on conflicts arising from intense differences over the meaning attached to symbols including armbands, flags and banners; statues of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols; depictions involving indecent images; and the conflicting perceptions of, and reactions to, “dirty” words. The symbols involved in these conflicts are essentially condensation symbols, and divisions over these decisions reflect cultural rifts that manifest themselves in the profoundly different (...) ways large groups of US citizens perceive images and words that evoke powerful emotional response. The Court has utilized a variety of doctrinal devices while engaging in the process of constitutional interpretation as it has struggled with these controversies in the context shaped by the broader culture that informs and constrains this process and by the elements within it that constantly struggle for validation. But the efficacy of its efforts remains questionable. (shrink)

Shifting laws and regulations increasingly displace the centrality of women's health concerns in the provision of abortion services. This is exemplified by the growing presence of deceptive Crisis Pregnancy Centers alongside new informed consent laws designed to dissuade women from seeking abortions. Litigation on informed consent is further complicated in the clinical context due to the increased mobilization of facts – such as the gestational age or sonogram of the fetus – delivered with the intent to dissuade women from accessing (...) abortion. In other words, factual information utilized for ideological purpose. To preserve a woman's autonomy and decision-making capacity, there must be a concerted effort on the part of legislators and courts to place a woman's health at the center of abortion law and policy. (shrink)

The year 1999 witnessed the horrific shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, where two teenage boys killed twelve of their classmates, a teacher, and then themselves. What lessons are to be learned from this tragedy? Certainly, it tells us that in a nation with approximately one third of a billion people, even an infinitesimal percentage of mentally unstable persons can create mayhem. Are there other lessons?

In September 2012, news broke of a developing drug disaster in the United States. Health authorities had linked a fungal meningitis outbreak to a contaminated steroid made by a company called the New England Compounding Center. The contaminated steroid was a compounded drug that had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, differing from three others that had been approved in that it lacked preservatives present in those agents. Factory inspections revealed unsanitary conditions at NECC's drug production facility. (...) By the time the source of the outbreak was identified, an estimated fourteen thousand people had been injected with the drug. As of December 2012, thirty‐nine had died of meningitis, and hundreds more had been diagnosed with meningitis and other drug‐related conditions. Many factors contributed to this disaster. One was a 2002 Supreme Court decision holding that a law prohibiting providers of compounded drugs from promoting their products through advertising and other means impermissibly restricted commercial speech. (shrink)

A recent wave of public interest surrounding the alleged advertising of cigarettes to children has raised First Amendment issues under the commercial speech doctrine. The two most vocal sides of this debate are sharply divided over the amount of constitutional protection that should be offered to tobacco advertisers. Proponents of restrictions on such ads argue that commercial speech does not advance any ideas worth preserving and is consequently deserving of less protection than other forms of speech. Their opponents (...) assert that commercial speech should be offered wide protection because of its role in contributing to individual autonomy in the marketplace of ideas through informing consumer choice. While I believe that commercial speech should be offered broad protection, I will argue that severe restrictions are morally justifiable and legally defensible when it comes to advertising to children, particularly with respect to harmful products. Since the free market of ideas model is premised upon a notion that there are reasonable consumers that can discern falsehood from truth, this model is invalidated when it comes to children since they cannot be expected to possess the same capacity for judgment as adults. (shrink)

This volume seeks to explain how American society, which had been capable of noble aspirations such as those in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was capable of adopting one of the most widely deplored statutes of our history, the Sedition Act of 1798. It examines how the political ideals of the American Revolution were undermined by the adoption of repressive doctrines of the English monarchial system - the criminalization of criticism against the king, the Parliament, the judiciary, and (...) Christianity. Freedom of speech was dramatically confined, and this law remained unchallenged until well into the twentieth century. This book will be of keen interest to all concerned with the early Republic, freedom of speech, and evolution of American constitutional jurisprudence. Because it addresses the much-criticized Sedition Act of 1798, one of the most dramatic illustrations of this repressive jurisprudence, the book will also be of interest to Americans concerned about preserving free speech in wartime. (shrink)