Free Speech Yearbook最新文献

{"title":"Freedom of Speech in the Global War on Terror: The Case of “Hadji Girl”","authors":"Christine M. Smith","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556384","url":null,"abstract":"During the global war on terror, soldiers in the theatres of Iraq and Afghanistan created, uploaded and circulated videos that chronicled their experiences in the war zone. These videos, which took the form of combat music videos or tributes to fallen soldiers, served as the latest manifestation of soldiers’ “letters home” and were widely covered in popular culture and academic venues (see Anden-Papadopoulos; Christensen; Coughlin; Kaufman; McClam; Sax; Smith & McDonald; Terry). News accounts initially praised the soldier-produced videos for providing images that served as an alternative to military sanctioned material and fostered public engagement with the war effort. The military also believed the videos allowed soldiers to fill their downtime and communicate with friends and family. However, several controversies over offensive videos led the military to re-conceptualize their strategic communications approach. One such controversy involved the posting of “Hadji Girl,” a video of a song by U.S. Marine Joshua Belile, which described a fictional love affair and killing of an Iraqi civilian and her family. The term “Hadji” is a derogatory term that some military personnel serving in Iraq used to describe the civilian population. In the song, Belile goes to a Burger King where a young Iraqi girl entices him to follow her home. Upon arrival, her male relatives begin to attack him. Using the girl’s sister as a human shield, he proceeds to kill the entire family. The visual depiction had Belile performing the song for fellow soldiers who could be heard cheering and laughing at Al-Asad Air Base in Iraq. The video was initially uploaded in March 2006. It was widely circulated and debated in June 2006 and subsequently generated outrage among Muslim-rights and anti-war groups. Conservative groups defended it as an expression of free speech. In particular, on June 12, 2006, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) circulated a press release protesting the song’s celebration of killing civilians and the use of racist language to characterize Arabs. The organization’s stated concern was that “it creates a negative impression of our nation’s military. We’re also concerned that it may be symptomatic of a callousness that is developing against Iraqi civilians, which is also not good for the military or for their image in the Muslim world” (CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, cited in Kaufman). On the other hand, the reaction of some journalists and conservative bloggers claimed the video was merely an example of “blowing off steam” under stressful conditions (Michelle Malkin). Belile echoed this claim when he initially argued, “I think it’s a joke, and anybody who tries to take it seriously knows it’s a joke. People can’t just laugh at it and let it go” (Belile, cited in Mazzolini). Nevertheless, military spokesperson Major Shawn Haney condemned the song: “The video that was posted anonymously is clearly inappropriate and contrary to the high","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124112458","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}

{"title":"Trading Picket Signs for Radio Talk Show Appearances Post Snyder v. Phelps: Is This Extortion or a “More Speech” Solution?","authors":"J. Dee","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556380","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556380","url":null,"abstract":"In its 2011 Snyder v. Phelps decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favor of Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church’s right to picket outside a church during the military funeral of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq. The Court in essence held that the First Amendment’s protection of speech in a public forum trumps state tort laws allowing for recovery of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Even before the High Court ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket at Matthew Snyder’s funeral, and—adding insult to injury—ordered Matthew Snyder’s father Albert Snyder to pay $16,510 to the Westboro Baptist Church for court costs (Gregory). Only Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority, expressing concern for Matthew’s father Albert Snyder, who “suffered severe and lasting emotional injury” as a result of the Westboro Baptist Church’s “malevolent verbal attack on Matthew Snyder and his family” (Snyder v. Phelps 1222).","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130929440","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}

{"title":"Silencing Spectacles: Freedom of Speech on Trial","authors":"David R. Dewberry, Catherine L. Langford","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556388","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556388","url":null,"abstract":"The 2008 presidential election is a historic example of democracy in action. The presidential campaign, however, also provides unfortunate examples of the state rendering basic democratic principles ineffectual. One prime example of this curtailment is the arrest of noted journalist Amy Goodman at the Republican National Convention (RNC) in St. Paul, Minnesota. Goodman, wellknown as the host of Democracy Now! was covering the RNC when she received word that police were arresting two of her producers who were covering a group of protestors outside. Goodman raced to help her colleagues and the police arrested her as well. Goodman later recounted the event: “They seriously manhandled me and handcuffed my hands behind my back. The top ID [at the convention] is to get on the floor and the Secret Service ripped that off me. I had my Democracy Now! ID too. I was clearly a reporter” (Watt 26). Goodman was not the only reporter arrested during the 2008 RNC; she was one of 40. Two weeks after her arrest, city officials of St. Paul dropped the charges against Goodman and the other 40 journalists. The dismissal of the charges was seen as a victory for the freedom of the press. St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said, “This decision [to drop the charges] reflects the values we have in St. Paul to protect and promote our First Amendment rights to freedom of the press” (Havens 2). In response, Goodman said, “It’s good that these false charges have finally been dropped, but we never should have been arrested to begin with. These violent and unlawful arrests disrupted our work and had a chilling effect on the reporting of dissent. Freedom of the press is also about the public’s right to know what is happening on their streets...” (Goodman). Goodman’s response elucidates the true gravitas of the situation: the removal of the press from the public for specious reasons denies the American people the information that determines awareness of the political process. But we are concerned with a larger problem. Although the prosecutors eventually dropped the charges against Goodman,which means that the freedom of the press “triumphed,” during the RNC there was both direct and indirect censorship. Directly, Goodman’s three hours of incarceration kept her from serving, in her words, as a “critical watchdog in a democratic society” for a short, but critical, period of time during the four day convention (Linthicum). There was indirect censorship in that the focus of news coverage shifted from the convention to the issue of Goodman’s arrest. For although Democracy Now! continued to report on the RNC, Goodman and her detention became a major topic of news in terms of her journalistic rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, the press was censored by two means: first, members of the press were unable to cover the convention during their detainment and second, public discourse shifted from a focus on the events of the convention that the press corps were trying to cover to a discu","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130386031","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}

{"title":"Snyder v. Phelps: Protecting the Process of Persuasion","authors":"M. Bezanson","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556383","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123928538","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}

{"title":"Public Concern as Spectacle: The Problematic Decision of Snyder v. Phelps","authors":"Susan Balter-Reitz, M. Bruner","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556379","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556379","url":null,"abstract":"Despite being one of the most anticipated and commented upon cases on the 2010 Supreme Court docket, the Snyder v. Phelps decision surprised many court watchers. The Court, in an 8-1 decision, resoundingly supported Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church’s right to protest. There were a number of unusual aspects to the Court’s announcement of the decision: the relatively early release date in March, the lack of consideration, due to a technicality, of the “epic,” a hatefilled and despicable posting on the church’s website, and the near-unanimous finding. Most critics have been surprised by the absence of issues in the decision, especially the majority’s denial of relief under the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). However, it is the presence of the public concern test as the decision rule in this case, and its use, that marks this case as most unusual. Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion rests on a test that was incarnated in a public employee speech case and then refined in a libel case. Snyder v. Phelps marks the first time that the public concern test has been used in a protest case and its invocation is troubling on a number of levels. First, the heritage of the test is problematic: the public concern test, first outlined in Connick v Myers, codified the largely value-driven notion that speech with political implications deserves more protection than speech dealing with private matters, and this creates a content-based paradigm that lacks clear contours (Estlund). Second, the public/private speech distinction developed in Snyder creates a tautology (or circular definition) of public concern that rewards Westboro’s outrageousness at the expense of reasoned discourse in the public sphere.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"8 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128308973","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}

{"title":"Beyond Snyder v. Phelps: Free Speech and Funeral Picketing Laws","authors":"Dale A. Herbeck","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556381","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556381","url":null,"abstract":"Reverend Fred W. Phelps, Sr. and the members of his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, are “fire and brimstone” fundamentalists who believe that God hates all homosexuals. Because of our national toleration of homosexuality, Phelps and his followers believe God is punishing the United States, particularly U.S. military forces. The Westboro Baptist Church has voiced this position on the church’s web site and during protests at funerals held for prominent people and for United States servicemen killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a direct result of these activities, the federal government and 45 states have adopted laws that restrict or prohibit protests at funeral services or internment ceremonies. “The scope of state activity,” Stephen R. McAllister observes, “speaks volumes about the American public’s reaction to the funeral picketers” (579). The Supreme Court did not rule on the constitutionality of funeral picketing laws in Snyder v. Phelps. This case, brought by a distraught father named Albert Snyder, involved a lawsuit filed under Maryland law alleging intrusion on seclusion, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, holding that the First Amendment shielded the picketers from tort liability because of the political nature of the issues that their protest raised (1216-1217). Since Maryland did not have a law against picketing at funerals when the Westboro Baptist Church protested at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, the Justices had “no occasion to consider” whether such a law would be a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction under standards previously announced by the Court (1218). Because Snyder’s civil suit ultimately failed, these picketing laws take on new significance because they may offer the best means for federal, state, and local authorities to limit the expressive activities of Reverend Phelps and his followers. This analysis briefly considers whether such statutes unconstitutionally restrict freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"148 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128446010","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}

{"title":"Libelous Language Post Lawrence: Accusations of Homosexuality as Defamation","authors":"L. Phillips","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556385","url":null,"abstract":"Whether language has that tendency [to be defamatory] depends, among other factors, upon the temper of the times, the current of contemporary public opinion, with the result that words, harmless in one age, in one community, may be highly damaging to reputation at another time or in different place (Mencher v. Chesley 100).","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122482774","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}

{"title":"Index to the Free Speech Yearbook Volumes 1 (1962) to 45 (2011)","authors":"Dale A. Herbeck","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556391","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556391","url":null,"abstract":"1 Mark Klyn, “Forward,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), ii. 2 Robert M. O’Neil, “Survey of the Law of Freedom of Speech, 1961-1962,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 1-24. 3 Robert M. O’Neil, “Teaching Freedom of Speech: Two Approaches,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 25-40. 4 Arthur Hough and Michael Fischer, “Freedom of Speech on the College Campus: Two Current Problems,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 41-46. 5 “Selected Bibliography on Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly,” Free Speech Yearbook 1 (1962), 47-65. 6 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly and Association, 1962-1963,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 1-16. 7 “Bibliography of Freedom of Speech and Press, 1962-1963,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 17-20. 8 Gerald M. Messner and Nancy Shingler Messner, “Freedom of Speech and the Teaching of Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 2 (1963), 21-32. 9 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: Freedoms of Expression in the Courts, 19631964,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 1-21. 10 Robert M. O’Neil, “Bibliography on Freedoms of Expression, 1963-64,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 22-25. 11 Franklyn S. Haiman, “Some Reflections on the Teaching of Freedom of Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 3 (1964), 26-30. 12 Robert M. O’Neil, “Annual Survey of the Law: The First Amendment in the Courts, 19641965,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 1-17. 13 Robert M. O’Neil, “Bibliography on Freedoms of Expression, 1964-1965,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 18-22. 14 Alvin Goldberg and Gail Myers, “Empirical and Experimental Research Opportunities in Free Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 23-25. 15 Walter Terris, “Free Speech,” Free Speech Yearbook 4 (1965), 36-45.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121285653","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}

{"title":"The Snyder v. Phelps Ruling: Narrow, and in Keeping with First Amendment Precedent","authors":"Cindy Simmons","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556382","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556382","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122442944","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}

{"title":"Snyder v. Phelps: The Problem of Context","authors":"C. Smith","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2012.10556378","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2012.10556378","url":null,"abstract":"(2012). Snyder v. Phelps: The Problem of Context. Free Speech Yearbook: Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 3-9.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121536625","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}