重新审视第一修正案：有多少类别？

Nova law review Pub Date : 2016-10-10 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2850640

Marc Rohr

{"title":"重新审视第一修正案：有多少类别？","authors":"Marc Rohr","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2850640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court has allowed considerable judicial confusion to develop with respect to its “public forum” categories in First Amendment law. Because some courts have (reasonably) inferred that the “limited public forum” and the “non-public forum” are, analytically, one and the same, confusion persists as to the proper terminology and the number of “forum” categories. This short article explores those questions and suggests a resolution.","PeriodicalId":82201,"journal":{"name":"Nova law review","volume":"41 1","pages":"2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"First Amendment Fora Revisited: How Many Categories Are There?\",\"authors\":\"Marc Rohr\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2850640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court has allowed considerable judicial confusion to develop with respect to its “public forum” categories in First Amendment law. Because some courts have (reasonably) inferred that the “limited public forum” and the “non-public forum” are, analytically, one and the same, confusion persists as to the proper terminology and the number of “forum” categories. This short article explores those questions and suggests a resolution.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nova law review\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"2\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nova law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2850640\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nova law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2850640","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

摘要

最高法院允许在第一修正案中的“公共论坛”类别方面出现相当大的司法混乱。由于一些法院（合理地）推断，从分析角度来看，“有限公共论坛”和“非公共论坛”是一体的，因此在适当的术语和“论坛”类别的数量方面仍然存在困惑。这篇短文探讨了这些问题，并提出了解决方案。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

First Amendment Fora Revisited: How Many Categories Are There?

The Supreme Court has allowed considerable judicial confusion to develop with respect to its “public forum” categories in First Amendment law. Because some courts have (reasonably) inferred that the “limited public forum” and the “non-public forum” are, analytically, one and the same, confusion persists as to the proper terminology and the number of “forum” categories. This short article explores those questions and suggests a resolution.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Nova law review

自引率

0.00%

发文量