Suchergebnisse

The relationship between the First Amendment stipulation of the freedom of the press, terrorism, & censorship is examined to determine the executive's guidelines for restraining mass media coverage of terrorist activities. After noting that previous presidential administrations have adopted three approaches to curtailing mass media reporting of terrorism (eg, formal censorship), it is demonstrated that the freedom of the press has generally been restrained during national security crises; indeed, several examples in which the federal government has censored the US mass media's coverage of certain events, eg, the Korean & Vietnam Wars, are cited to bolster this conclusion. It is speculated that the involvement of "embedded journalists" during the US's post-September 11, 2001, military activities essentially functioned as a novel strategy for restraining the mass media's reporting of US military actions. The viability of the George W. Bush administration's explanation that media censorship after September 11, 2001, was necessary to preserve national security is then assessed. Recommendations for establishing a policy that attempts to balance national security & government respect for the mass media's First Amendment rights are offered. J. W. Parker

"Disinformation" researchers alarmed by the injunction against government meddling with social media content admire legal regimes that allow broad speech restrictions.

Intro -- Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data -- Contents -- Preface -- Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment( -- Summary -- Introduction -- Unprotected Speech -- Obscenity2 -- Child Pornography12 -- Fighting Words and True Threats -- Protected Speech -- Content-Based Restrictions -- Prior Restraint -- Forum Doctrine -- Non-Content-Based Restrictions -- Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions -- Incidental Restrictions -- Commercial Speech -- Compelled Speech -- Defamation -- Speech Harmful to Children -- Children's First Amendment Rights -- Radio and Television -- Freedom of Speech and Government Funding -- Free Speech Rights of Government Employees and Government Contractors -- Government Employees -- Government Contractors -- Symbolic Speech -- Acknowledgments -- End Notes -- Regulation of Broadcast Indecency: Background and Legal Analysts( -- Summary -- Introduction -- Background -- Evolution of the FCC's Indecency Regulations -- Current Regulations -- Explicitness or Graphic Nature of Material -- Dwelling or Repetition of Potentially Offensive Material -- Pandering or Titillating Nature of Material -- Golden Globe Awards Decision -- Super Bowl Halftime Show Decision -- Other Recent Enforcement Actions -- Infinity Broadcasting -- Clear Channel Broadcasting -- Recent Supreme Court and Appeals Court Decisions -- Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC -- CBS Corp. v. FCC -- Current Status -- Would Prohibiting the Broadcast of "Indecent" Words Regardless of Context Violate the First Amendment? -- Broadcast Media -- Strict Scrutiny -- Second Circuit's Dicta in Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, and the Supreme Court's Dicta in Its Reversal of the Second Circuit -- Acknowledgments -- End Notes -- Obscenity, Child Pornography, and Indecency: Brief Background and Recent Developments( -- Summary.

Recounting controversial First Amendment cases from the Red Scare era to Citizens United, William Bennett Turner shows how we've arrived at our contemporary understanding of free speech. His strange cast of heroes and villains, some drawn from cases he litigated, includes Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Ku Klux Klansmen, the world's leading pornographer, prison wardens, dogged reporters, federal judges, a computer whiz, and a counterculture comedian. Figures of Speech offers a brief and insightful history of speaking up--and facing the consequences.

What is Wrong with the First Amendment? argues that the US love affair with the First Amendment has mutated into free speech idolatry. Free speech has been placed on so high a pedestal that it is almost automatically privileged over privacy, fair trials, equality and public health, even protecting depictions of animal cruelty and violent video games sold to children. At the same time, dissent is unduly stifled and religious minorities are burdened. The First Amendment benefits the powerful at the expense of the vulnerable. By contrast, other Western democracies provide more reasonable accommodations between free speech and other values though their protections of dissent, and religious minorities are also inadequate. Professor Steven H. Shiffrin argues that US free speech extremism is not the product of broad cultural factors, but rather political ideologies developed after the 1950s. He shows that conservatives and liberals have arrived at similar conclusions for different political reasons

Are you sitting down? It turns out that everything you learned about the First Amendment is wrong. For too long, we've been treating small, isolated snippets of the text as infallible gospel without looking at the masterpiece of the whole. Legal luminary Burt Neuborne argues that the structure of the First Amendment as well as of the entire Bill of Rights was more intentional than most people realize, beginning with the internal freedom of conscience and working outward to freedom of expression and finally freedom of public association. This design, Neuborne argues, was not to protect discrete

Intro -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- 1 Freedom as a Matter of Faith -- 2 Metaphor and Community -- 3 Linguistic Transformation -- 4 Political Pathways -- 5 War and Syntax -- 6 Adjudication as Facilitation -- Coda -- Notes -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y.

The context for the modern military chaplain differs from most congregational ministries and contains certain uncommon complexities. These complexities, in part, are the result of First Amendment court cases and related lawsuits, being under the authority of a secular military organization, and accentuated by societal alterations. The public debate on religion and religious activity in the military, a number of First Amendment lawsuits challenging government chaplaincy, and the increasing secularization of American society create a distinct ministerial environment with numerous pitfalls. These factors result in requirements for a military chaplain to care for all persons regardless of faith, and to ensure the religious freedom of all service members including non-Christian faith groups. This project is a training module for new Christian chaplains entering the military. The guide may have application for other chaplains, though the theology, traditions, and Scriptures are thoroughly Christian. The guide instructs on the current environment of military chaplains and on the legal constraints from contemporary interpretations of the First Amendment's religious clauses. Most chaplains adapt well to these ministry complexities over time. The project aims to speed the adaptation by better preparing new chaplains for the contextual changes and enable a greater understanding of the many dynamics affecting this particular form of ministry. This information will assist new military chaplains to avert destructive results, learn the distinct environment faster, and allow their vital ministry to flourish. The training module is in a pilot program phase to improve the presentation, text, and other factors. The training curriculum will be offered to any new chaplain's Endorsing Agent and other interested parties upon conclusion of the pilot. Content Reader: Alan Baker, DMin

Cover -- Copyright -- Contents -- Introduction -- A Crash Course in Constitutional Law -- 1. Brief History of the First Amendment -- 2. The Supreme Court: Men (and Women Since 1981) in Black -- Religion: The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses -- 3. We're Gonna Build a Big Beautiful Wall...Between Church and State! -- 4. Supporting Religious Schools: When the Court Gives you the Lemon Test Make Legal Lemonade -- 5. Go to the Principal's Office, Amen: Religion in Public Schools -- 6. Public Display: Your Creche is Showing -- 7. Figuring Out the Free Exercise Clause: Is it Peyote Before Polygamy, or Contraception Coverage Before Santeria? -- Expression: Freedoms of Speech, the Press, Assembly, Petition, and Association -- 8. Seditious Libel, Bad Tendencies, and Alien Provacateura, Oh My! -- 9. Clear and Present Danger (Without Tom Clancy or Harrison Ford) -- 10. There's a Time, Place, and Manner for Everything: Free Speech in Public Schools and on Government Property -- 11. Free Speech for the Dumb: "Fighting Words," Provocation, Hostile Audiences, and Hate Speech -- 12. Buring Flags, Draft Cards, and Crosses: Symbolic Speech and Expression -- 13. I Know it When I See It: Obscenity Law and Political Speech Since the Age of Aquarius -- 14. Don't Defame Me, Bro! -- 15. Corporations are People, My Friend: Is Money the Same Thing as Speech? -- 16. Can the Fourth Estate Be (Priorly) Restrained? -- Further Reading -- About the Author and Illustrator -- Backcover

The Adversary First Amendment presents a unique and controversial rethinking of modern American democratic theory and free speech. Most free speech scholars understand the First Amendment as a vehicle for or protection of democracy itself, relying upon cooperative or collectivist theories of democracy. Martin Redish reconsiders free speech in the context of adversary democracy, arguing that individuals should have the opportunity to affect the outcomes of collective decision-making according to their own values and interests.Adversary democracy recognizes the inevitability