Clear and present danger standard 100th anniversary: Examining Donald J. Trump’s “presidential” rhetoric as a clear and present danger

Q2 Social Sciences

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2021.1886967

E. Brewer, Chrys Egan

引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT For the past 100 years, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, from 1919 has stood as a landmark case due to the Court’s creation of a “Clear and Present Danger” standard of freedom of speech. Through the vehicle of the Clear and Present Danger measure, the Court reconsidered that the degree of freedom for inflammatory rhetoric could be legally permissible until the point that realistic danger of harm or illegal action might occur. One century after this ruling, this paper examines the unprecedentedly divisive and uncivil public rhetoric of a US President, Donald J. Trump. Through a descriptive analysis summarizing the characteristics of President Trump’s rhetoric, we contend that Trump generates a level of dangerous Presidential communication not publicly expressed by previous Presidents that arguably could be considered to overstep the limits of free expression set forth by the courts.

查看原文本刊更多论文

明确而现实的危险标准100周年纪念:将唐纳德·j·特朗普的“总统”言论视为明确而现实的危险

摘要在过去的100年里，最高法院对1919年的申克诉美国案（《美国联邦判例汇编》第249卷第47页）的裁决一直是一个里程碑式的案件，因为最高法院制定了言论自由的“明显和当前的危险”标准。通过“明显和当前的危险”措施，法院重新考虑，在可能发生伤害或非法行动的现实危险之前，煽动性言论的自由度在法律上是允许的。在这一裁决一个世纪后，本文审视了美国总统唐纳德·J·特朗普前所未有的分裂和不文明的公开言论。通过总结特朗普总统言论特征的描述性分析，我们认为，特朗普产生了一种前几任总统没有公开表达的危险的总统沟通，可以说这种沟通可以被认为超越了法院规定的言论自由的限制。

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

First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).