Free Speech Yearbook最新文献

{"title":"A Fractured Establishment's Responses to Social Movement Agitation: The U.S. Supreme Court and the Negotiation of an Outsider Point of Entry in Walker v. City of Birmingham","authors":"Carlo A. Pedrioli","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556350","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556350","url":null,"abstract":"In classical social movement theory, scholars have identified the advocates of change as elements of agitation and the establishment as the entity that responds in an attempt to control the agitators. This classical approach has assumed that the establishment is a generally monolithic entity that responds in a unified manner to the efforts of the advocates of change.While this approach may accurately characterize some rhetorical situations, it does not necessarily have to characterize all such situations. For example, one could describe the judiciary as a part of the establishment because judges are well-connected and powerful individuals who, in many cases, have benefited from existing power structures. Although the judiciary, through majority opinions, makes decisions on appeals that come before it, the judiciary also issues dissenting opinions that can directly contradict the majority opinions.In light of the potential for expanding social movement theory beyond an essentially monolithic understanding of the establishment, the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in the 1967 case of Walker v. City of Birmingham affords communication scholars an opportunity for needed development of social movement theory. Therefore, this paper argues that two key texts from Walker, the majority opinion of Justice Potter Stewart and a dissent by Justice William Brennan, demonstrate how the establishment can fracture in its response to the speech of advocates of change. To make this argument, the paper initially addresses some foundations of social movement theory in communication studies. Then the paper reviews the background of the Walker case in greater detail. After reviewing the case, the paper provides analysis of the two judicial opinions noted above. Finally, the paper offers some implications of the analysis.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"253 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114545958","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":"Gazing into the Abyss: A Forum with John Durham Peters","authors":"S. O’Rourke","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556353","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556353","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"62 17","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120821074","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":"Freedom of Expression in Communicative Cities","authors":"S. Drucker, G. Gumpert","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556347","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556347","url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines the relationship between studies in urban communication and freedom of expression. It introduces the concept of the “communicative city” and then explores those elements that regulate freedom of expression in a city. It examines the web of regulations that support urban communication contrasted with those which hinder and therefore disqualify a city from being “communicative.” The urban environment is explored in an effort to develop a paradigm of urban communication law.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132012721","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 Internet and the Environmental Protection Agency: Public Access to Toxic Chemical Off-Site Consequence Information","authors":"James F. Carstens","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556349","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556349","url":null,"abstract":"The Science Communication Interest Group section of the proceedings contains the following 6 selected papers: \"The Internet and the Environmental Protection Agency: Public Access to Toxic Chemical Off-Site Consequence Information\" (James F. Carstens); \"Motivations To Participate in Riparian Improvement Programs: Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior\" (Julia B. Corbett); \"Experts in All Areas: Medical and Scientific Sources in Stories about AIDS\" (William P. Cassidy); \"Get Excited! Be Calm! An Examination of Risk-Inducing and Risk-Reducing Statements in Food-Safety Messages\" (Joye Gordon); \"Media Effects on Public Understanding of Salmon Recovery: The Role of Information Processing\" (Keith R. Stamm, Fiona Clark and Marcos Torres); and \"A Repertoire Approach to Environmental Information Channels\" (Garrett J. O'Keefe) . (RS) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (84th, Washington, DC, August 5-8, 2001): Science Communication Interest Group. BEST COPY AVAILABLE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) O This document has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it. O Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality. Points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy. PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132547515","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 War in Iraq and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: Response to John Durham Peters' Courting the Abyss","authors":"D. Fraleigh","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556355","url":null,"abstract":"“Free speech is, to use the New Testament term, a skandalon, an offense designed to bring about some greater end.” In Courting the Abyss: Free Speech and the Liberal Tradition, John Durham Peters presents a provocative and articulate critique of the free speech narrative, as he perceives that this story is told from the liberal perspective. Professor Peters argues that many central tenets of freedom of expression are troubling. He critiques misplaced optimism in the emancipatory and truth-discovering functions of the marketplace of ideas, 2 the refusal of liberals to criticize the most hurtful, repulsive, or inane expression, homeopathic machismo, or the theory that exposure to small portions of evil speech strengthens us, the expectation of stoicism when participants in the public sphere are attacked, and the “abyss artists” (ranging from Bertrand Russell to Michel Foucault to Jim Morrison, Nirvana, and rap musicians), those “connoisseurs of the ditch” who push the envelope to “none accountable.” I would agree with many of Professor Peters’ contentions insofar as they offer guidelines for how an ethical communicator ought to act. His formula of “stoicism for the self, cynicism for institutions, and sentimentality for others” seems a worthy philosophy of life. Each of us ought to consider the impact of our communication on others and it is laudable to bear witness in the face of social injustice. However, I do not agree that the primary chapters of liberalism’s free speech narrative are the ones that are critiqued in Courting the Abyss. The thesis of this response is that the better Greek metaphor for freedom of speech is promachonas (bastion, bulwark) rather than skandalon. A primary rationale for free expression, perhaps the most significant one, is the First Amendment’s role as a bastion against the government. In this response, I will highlight the role of free expression as a check against government abuses of power, show that an important rationale for judicial opinions cited in Courting the Abyss is this checking function, and finally, contend that sometimes it is necessary to step into the abyss when the government fails to promote social justice.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126188552","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":"Shedding Light or Casting Shadows? The Penumbra Metaphor, Privacy and Privileged Communication","authors":"J. Dee","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556346","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556346","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131539509","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":"Falsely Shouting Fire in a Crowded Theater, a Revolutionary Spark, and Burning the House to Roast the Pig: Fire Metaphors and the First Amendment","authors":"Dale A. Herbeck","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556343","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556343","url":null,"abstract":"Over the course of the twentieth century, the United States Supreme Court gradually extended First Amendment protection to include progressively more speech. This dramatic change in thinking was the result of a remarkable judicial debate that started in 1919, when the clear-and-present-danger principle was announced in Schenck v. United States, a case brought under the Espionage Act of 1917. While the Espionage Act cases are “among the most anthologized cases in American constitutional law” (White 312-313), most of the voluminous legal analysis has ignored the rhetorical dimension of these landmark decisions (Smith 20). This is a curious oversight, as the tropes and figures featured in these remarkable opinions are arguably as important as the legal standards in understanding the nature of freedom of speech. The “dominant metaphor” of the Espionage Act cases is fire (Bobertz 591). The first of the fire metaphors occurred in Schenck v. United States where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ majority opinion asserted that “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic” (52). This is not, however, the only reference to fire in the Supreme Court’s many decisions on freedom of speech. While Holmes’ reference to the “shouting fire” may be most famous, the justices have offered a variety of fire metaphors to justify their decisions over the decades. One of the most powerful was the image of “a single revolutionary spark,” an image that portrayed radical speech as a prelude to a fiery conflagration (Gitlow 669). More recently, an entirely different fire metaphor was offered to argue against overbroad laws that might suppress protected expression. Instead of being invoked to suppress speech, the appeal to “burn[ing] the house to roast the pig” was used to defend the freedom of speech (Butler 383). While traditional legal analysis often regards such metaphors as a form of embellishment, a more sophisticated understanding suggests that these rhetorical devices are an integral part of the argument. By tracing the fire metaphors featured in notable Supreme Court decisions across the decades, it is possible to appreciate the powerful role played by these simple appeals. Moreover, an awareness of the shifting fire metaphors yields insight into the evolution of freedom of speech in the United States. At several key junctures, the use of the metaphor actually preceded the announcement of new legal doctrine.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121271472","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 Devil, the Media, and Free Speech: Response to John Durham Peters' Courting the Abyss","authors":"J. Armstrong","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556354","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556354","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121671363","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":"Jefferson's “Wall of Separation”: How Jurisprudential Interpretation Shaped a Secular Polity","authors":"Joseph J. Hemmer","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556344","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556344","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"1992 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125529042","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":"Regulating Diversity: The Effect of Retransmission Consent on the Consolidation of the Television Industry","authors":"Mara Einstein","doi":"10.1080/08997225.2009.10556348","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08997225.2009.10556348","url":null,"abstract":"Diversity has been a guiding principle for communications policymakers since the Communications Act of 1934. However, neither the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nor the Congress has ever defined the term as it relates to program content diversity. In part this is due to the FCC being limited in its ability to regulate content diversity due to the First Amendment. Rather, regulators look at structural diversity – source diversity and outlet diversity – as a proxy for content diversity (Kleiman, 1991, Le Duc, 1982). This indirect means of regulating content has been ineffective in improving diversity (Einstein, 2004, Biebly & Biebly, 2003). Yet, this means of regulation continues while there is no proof of a causal relationship between structure and content (Napoli, 1999). Even so, defining diversity becomes academic in an environment that depends primarily on advertising dollars for support. As Owen, Beebe, and Manning (1974) have said “competition under advertiser support tends to produce less diversity and more ‘wasteful duplication’ than is socially optimal.” This economic condition drives a sense of competition among program providers, thus serving their shareholders rather than the general public. Yet this does not have to be so. From a diversity perspective, “what would be in the public interest is presentation of all the programs that could command payments in excess of their costs of production and distribution” (Cass, 1981, p. 61), which one would expect would achieve optimization of diversity. This means, therefore, that programs do not have to generate a huge audience, just one that will sustain it. In the current media environment, however, it is becoming harder and harder for anyone other than the largest media institutions to cover their cost of business due to vertical integration. These large institutions make it impossible for small companies to compete because they would have to enter the business as a multi-level organization (Litman, 1998, see also Owen & Wildman, 1992, and Vogel, 2001). A number of media scholars have decried the limitations of marketplace (source) diversity brought about by this vertical integration (Bagdikian, 1992; McChesney, 1997; Miller, 1996), and it is structural regulation that is bringing this to pass. The most recent regulation to contribute to the consolidation of the television industry is retransmission consent. Originally created to provide an equitable marketplace between broadcasting and cable by creating parity in revenue streams (and thus maintaining source diversity), instead it has led to increased consolidation among broadcast and cable program providers. This study is a historical analysis of the rules and their impact on consolidation within the television industry.","PeriodicalId":439135,"journal":{"name":"Free Speech Yearbook","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125220985","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}