Government Speech

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
T. Halper
{"title":"Government Speech","authors":"T. Halper","doi":"10.2478/bjals-2022-0009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The First Amendment commands government neutrality in regulating private speech, but government speech itself is exempt from this requirement. Courts have recognized that governance entails educational, informational, and persuasive speech, and have focused on distinguishing government speech from nongovernment speech. Some critics have argued that, instead, courts might do well to target government speech that manipulates public opinion or abridges private speech, as it is the consequences of the speech and not the nature of the speaker that really matters. The basic problem remains unsolved: If courts treat government speech as covered by the First Amendment, the practical utility of government speech disappears. But if courts deny that government speech is covered by the First Amendment, government speech may silence or overwhelm private speech and much of the practical utility of the First Amendment may disappear.","PeriodicalId":40555,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":"323 - 354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of American Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2022-0009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The First Amendment commands government neutrality in regulating private speech, but government speech itself is exempt from this requirement. Courts have recognized that governance entails educational, informational, and persuasive speech, and have focused on distinguishing government speech from nongovernment speech. Some critics have argued that, instead, courts might do well to target government speech that manipulates public opinion or abridges private speech, as it is the consequences of the speech and not the nature of the speaker that really matters. The basic problem remains unsolved: If courts treat government speech as covered by the First Amendment, the practical utility of government speech disappears. But if courts deny that government speech is covered by the First Amendment, government speech may silence or overwhelm private speech and much of the practical utility of the First Amendment may disappear.
政府的言论
第一修正案要求政府在规范私人言论时保持中立,但政府言论本身不受这一要求的约束。法院已经认识到,治理需要教育性、信息性和说服性言论,并将重点放在区分政府言论和非政府言论上。一些批评人士认为,相反,法院可能会很好地针对那些操纵公众舆论或限制私人言论的政府言论,因为真正重要的是言论的后果,而不是说话者的性质。基本问题仍然没有解决:如果法院将政府言论视为第一修正案所涵盖的范围,那么政府言论的实际效用就消失了。但是,如果法院否认政府言论受《第一修正案》的保护,政府言论可能会压制或压倒私人言论,《第一修正案》的许多实际效用可能会消失。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
6
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The British Journal of American Legal Studies is a scholarly journal which publishes articles of interest to the Anglo-American legal community. Submissions are invited from academics and practitioners on both sides of the Atlantic on all aspects of constitutional law having relevance to the United States, including human rights, legal and political theory, socio-legal studies and legal history. International, comparative and interdisciplinary perspectives are particularly welcome. All submissions will be peer-refereed through anonymous referee processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信