First Amendment Studies最新文献_第6页

Introduction to special section on safe spaces for core beliefs 介绍核心信仰的安全空间

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1507437

P. Siegel

引用次数: 0

Core beliefs/content accommodation policies and teaching practice 核心信念/内容容纳政策和教学实践

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1507833

Sarah Steimel

引用次数: 0

Speech and society in turbulent times: Freedom of expression in comparative perspective 动荡时期的言论与社会:比较视角下的言论自由

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1489297

Kevin A. Johnson, Lucienne Profenius

引用次数: 0

Entertaining free expression on public sidewalks: Are city ordinances kicking musical muses to the curb? 在公共人行道上娱乐性的自由表达：城市条例是在把音乐缪斯踢到路边吗？

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1500929

Susan H. Sarapin, P. Morris

{"title":"Entertaining free expression on public sidewalks: Are city ordinances kicking musical muses to the curb?","authors":"Susan H. Sarapin, P. Morris","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2018.1500929","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2018.1500929","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Freedom of expression, provided by the First Amendment, is a core part of the foundation of our democracy. Yet those who use public places for artistic expression, such as music, are still fighting to benefit from this right, a right vital to their ability to earn a living from musical performances. Historically, both in the United States and elsewhere, buskers, those who perform on the streets for tips, have been subjected to unreasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of their speech, and, at times, outright banishment from constitutionally protected public fora. This article demonstrates why current restrictions on street performers constitute clear violations of free speech through an examination of historical restrictions, case law, and the current rules and regulations of four US cities. Obtaining an ostensibly permanent decision from the Supreme Court is not the solution for ensuring the free-speech rights of street performers. Rather, we present an example of model regulations that, if embraced by individual localities, can ensure proper protection for the First Amendment rights of musicians in public spaces.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2018.1500929","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45313137","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Workplace bullying policies, higher education and the First Amendment: Building bridges not walls 职场欺凌政策、高等教育和第一修正案:架起桥梁，而不是筑起高墙

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1495094

Frances L. M. Smith, Crystal Rae Coel

{"title":"Workplace bullying policies, higher education and the First Amendment: Building bridges not walls","authors":"Frances L. M. Smith, Crystal Rae Coel","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2018.1495094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2018.1495094","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that higher education institutions should change their Faculty Codes of Conduct to reflect workplace bullying as a form of unacceptable harassment. The article first provides a definition for workplace bullying; secondly, it offers an analysis of how the First Amendment is not an absolute, especially in the workplace; thirdly, it examines the scant legislative and judicial attention that is given to this issue; and finally, an argument is made to show how colleges and universities are not providing clear enough policies and procedures to address workplace bullying. That argument focuses on results of our thematic analysis of 276 Faculty Codes of Conduct from a variety of universities and colleges across the United States. That analysis revealed two primary themes: the Harassment Hang-up and Employee Engagement. Based on this analysis, we conclude that higher education institutions should change their Faculty Codes of Conduct so bullying is defined as a distinctive form of harassment, provide faculty and staff clear communications regarding how to define bullying, and offer guidance for both targets and bystanders of workplace bullying.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2018.1495094","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44312615","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 18

Copyrighting facts? Ownership of news images 版权问题的事实吗?新闻图片的所有权

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-06-07 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1474122

K. Olson

引用次数: 0

Toward a discursive marketplace of ideas: Reimaging the marketplace metaphor in the era of social media, fake news, and artificial intelligence 走向思想的话语市场：重塑社交媒体、假新闻和人工智能时代的市场隐喻

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-05-15 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1460215

Jared Schroeder

{"title":"Toward a discursive marketplace of ideas: Reimaging the marketplace metaphor in the era of social media, fake news, and artificial intelligence","authors":"Jared Schroeder","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2018.1460215","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2018.1460215","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The marketplace of ideas metaphor remains one of the Supreme Court’s most enduring tools for communicating understandings regarding freedom of expression. For nearly a century, justices from a variety of judicial philosophies, in several areas of First Amendment law, including commercial speech, defamation, and obscenity, have called upon the metaphor to help them convey what have ultimately become crucial interpretations regarding the Amendment’s protections. Metaphors, however, do not have static meanings. In light of the important considerations of paradigmatic social and technological changes that have substantially altered the very nature of the marketplace of ideas in society, particularly in the era of social media, fake news, and artificially intelligent communicators, this essay examines how the marketplace metaphor can be both reinterpreted and reimagined to account for a substantially different twenty-first-century information environment while remaining faithful to its author’s understandings about the nature of truth. To this end, this essay examines how Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes understood truth, considers differences between Enlightenment and discursive-based understandings regarding the flow of communication in democratic society, and explores how the Supreme Court has traditionally employed the metaphor. Finally, it proposes a revised conceptualization of the marketplace of ideas, ultimately labeled as the “discursive marketplace.”","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2018.1460215","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41712056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 9

Understanding Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar and its implications for freedom of speech in judicial elections 理解Williams Yulee诉佛罗里达律师协会案及其对司法选举中言论自由的影响

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2018-03-14 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2018.1444501

A. McLeod

{"title":"Understanding Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar and its implications for freedom of speech in judicial elections","authors":"A. McLeod","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2018.1444501","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2018.1444501","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article discusses the US Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar and its potential implications for judicial candidate speech and judicial elections. Based in part on a survey of cases involving restrictions on judicial candidate speech decided before and after Williams-Yulee, the article argues that Williams-Yulee effectively overruled the Court’s earlier decision in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, by weakening the strict scrutiny test that White applied to judicial candidate speech regulations. Specifically, Williams-Yulee weakened White’s version of strict scrutiny by removing the demand that the government demonstrate the effectiveness of its speech-regulating policies in achieving its goals, and by embracing a more permissive form of inclusivity analysis. This weaker version of strict scrutiny could facilitate government interference in the public education process that occurs during judicial elections, which is a process that affects citizens’ propensities to participate in elections, and their ability to make informed judgments about whom they want to put on the bench.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2018.1444501","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45886066","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The new voice of America: Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act 新的美国之声:反外国宣传和虚假信息法案

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2017-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2017.1349618

H. Hall

{"title":"The new voice of America: Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act","authors":"H. Hall","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2017.1349618","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2017.1349618","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Just before the 2016 Christmas holiday weekend, President Barack Obama quietly signed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law. Deep within the act is a controversial provision called the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act (CFPDA), which establishes a Global Engagement Center under the State Department and consolidates the power of several federal broadcasting entities under one authority. This center will coordinate efforts to counter foreign propaganda, mainly from Russia and China, that is aimed at undermining the United States’ national security interests. The consolidation of power creates some concerns regarding journalistic independence and credibility for media outlets such as the Voice of America. The new Trump administration’s perceived amicable relationship with Russia also generates uncertainty around the commitment to fight Russian disinformation and propaganda. This essay argues that the US does in fact need some kind of governmental entity devoted to the creation of counter-propaganda, and then concludes there are deficiencies and vulnerabilities with the CFPDA, especially a lack of adequate administrative oversight. Based on this conclusion, as well as on lessons gleaned from how other nations have dealt with Russian disinformation campaigns, the essay offers tentative recommendations as to what an effective governing structure would look like.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2017.1349618","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45640820","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

The biggest lie on the web: Coming to terms with the failure to read through the lens of the First Amendment 网络上最大的谎言：接受未能解读第一修正案的事实

First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2017-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2017.1388749

Susan H. Sarapin, P. Morris, Ngoc Vo

{"title":"The biggest lie on the web: Coming to terms with the failure to read through the lens of the First Amendment","authors":"Susan H. Sarapin, P. Morris, Ngoc Vo","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2017.1388749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2017.1388749","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract As lines between public and private spaces online continue to blur, contracts are moving closer to the day when government actors will be involved in all of them. When 90%+ of online users do not read the terms-of-service (ToS) agreements of social media sites, they are unaware of possible repercussions of blindly assenting to these unread contracts, including potentially relinquishing a number of their constitutional rights. Primary among these is their First Amendment right to petition the government for relief in a court of law. In most ToSs, the online user must agree to mandatory arbitration in the site owner’s venue of choice. Secondary is their sole right to their intellectual property afforded by the Constitution. Through an online survey (N = 235), this article reports data concerning respondents’ attitudes toward reading ToSs, their demographic information, and their likelihood of accepting a forum-selection term from Twitter, contrary to their potential constitutional rights. Two major findings are that: (a) there was no effect of education on the likelihood of rejecting Google’s unfavorable copyright-related terms; and (b) 63.2% of those who state they would not, under any condition, accept the unfavorable Twitter forum-selection term do, indeed, belong to or have belonged to Twitter.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2017.1388749","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45473400","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1