Pub Date : 2023-11-17DOI: 10.1080/27671127.2023.2279216
Gabriela Tscholl
In October 2018, March For Our Lives (MFOL) released “The Most Vicious Cycle,” a music video designed to mobilize collective agency among youth voters in the midterm election. The video, which feat...
2018年10月,“为我们的生命游行”(MFOL)推出了旨在动员中期选举青年选民集体力量的mv《最恶性的循环》(The Most Vicious Cycle)。视频,哪个壮举…
{"title":"Multimodal rhetorics in the gun debate: Encouraging youth agency in March for Our Lives’ “The Most Vicious Cycle”","authors":"Gabriela Tscholl","doi":"10.1080/27671127.2023.2279216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27671127.2023.2279216","url":null,"abstract":"In October 2018, March For Our Lives (MFOL) released “The Most Vicious Cycle,” a music video designed to mobilize collective agency among youth voters in the midterm election. The video, which feat...","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513669","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}
Pub Date : 2023-09-13DOI: 10.1080/27671127.2023.2252494
Lukas Mozdeika
Once lauded for liberating audiences from their passive state by granting voice, the digital public sphere today increasingly resembles a cacophony of disjointed voices datafied for the gain of gia...
{"title":"Nudges, emojis, and memes: Mapping interpassivity theory onto digital civic culture","authors":"Lukas Mozdeika","doi":"10.1080/27671127.2023.2252494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27671127.2023.2252494","url":null,"abstract":"Once lauded for liberating audiences from their passive state by granting voice, the digital public sphere today increasingly resembles a cacophony of disjointed voices datafied for the gain of gia...","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138513671","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1971101
Cary Federman
ABSTRACT Until the 1960s, governmental limits on speech and expression, particularly around issues of pornography and obscenity, were common. These restrictions were enacted to reinforce a set of standards that had broad support among the American people. Since the 1960s, we have seen a great expansion of the right to free speech and expression. Today, however, the libertarian consensus has fractured. The new censorship that favors regulating hate speech confronts the underlying premises of the old censorship. Rather than comparing and contrasting the libertarian position with the censorship of hate speech position, as is so often done, in this article, I will compare and contrast two pro-censorship positions, one group favoring the censorship of hate speech, the other favoring the censorship of pornography and obscenity. My purpose is not to advocate for censorship. Rather, my idea is to examine and explain the different rationales that exist in the two opposing approaches to censorship, to better judge the merits of censorship and free speech.
{"title":"Varieties of censorship: Hate speech, pornography, and the First Amendment","authors":"Cary Federman","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1971101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1971101","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Until the 1960s, governmental limits on speech and expression, particularly around issues of pornography and obscenity, were common. These restrictions were enacted to reinforce a set of standards that had broad support among the American people. Since the 1960s, we have seen a great expansion of the right to free speech and expression. Today, however, the libertarian consensus has fractured. The new censorship that favors regulating hate speech confronts the underlying premises of the old censorship. Rather than comparing and contrasting the libertarian position with the censorship of hate speech position, as is so often done, in this article, I will compare and contrast two pro-censorship positions, one group favoring the censorship of hate speech, the other favoring the censorship of pornography and obscenity. My purpose is not to advocate for censorship. Rather, my idea is to examine and explain the different rationales that exist in the two opposing approaches to censorship, to better judge the merits of censorship and free speech.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45762258","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1979419
Richard S. Price
ABSTRACT Every year thousands of people challenge the contents of libraries and school curriculum. The exact number of these complaints is impossible to measure and most are likely verbal in nature and handled informally. Some, however, explode into public view. This article explores two battles in New Jersey over Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic by Alison Bechdel. In a dispute that began via email, emerged publicly through several local board of education hearings, spread to a neighboring school, and then traveled to the courts, the Fun Home dispute illustrates the conflict at play in the joints between free speech, parental rights, and public authority.
每年都有成千上万的人挑战图书馆和学校课程的内容。这些投诉的确切数量是无法衡量的,大多数可能是口头的,非正式的处理。然而,其中一些却突然进入了公众视野。这篇文章探讨了艾莉森·贝克德尔(Alison Bechdel)在《欢乐之家:一个家庭悲喜剧》(Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic)中发生在新泽西州的两场战斗。这场纠纷从电子邮件开始,通过几次当地教育委员会听证会公开出现,蔓延到邻近的一所学校,然后上诉到法院。趣味之家的纠纷说明了言论自由、父母权利和公共权力之间的冲突。
{"title":"Navigating a doctrinal grey area: Free speech, the right to read, and schools","authors":"Richard S. Price","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1979419","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1979419","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Every year thousands of people challenge the contents of libraries and school curriculum. The exact number of these complaints is impossible to measure and most are likely verbal in nature and handled informally. Some, however, explode into public view. This article explores two battles in New Jersey over Fun Home: A Family Tragicomic by Alison Bechdel. In a dispute that began via email, emerged publicly through several local board of education hearings, spread to a neighboring school, and then traveled to the courts, the Fun Home dispute illustrates the conflict at play in the joints between free speech, parental rights, and public authority.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44176766","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1977160
J. Dee
ABSTRACT During the past half-century, countless women have been victims of sexual harassment, groping, and rape. When the #MeToo Movement gained momentum in October 2017, women who had victimized began to speak out. If women who were victims of sexual predators had not originally reported being raped but came forward as part of the #MeToo movement two or three decades later and the perpetrators denied it (in essence, accusing the victims of lying), their only legal recourse has been to sue the sexual predators for defamation. The law of defamation is a double-edged sword, however, because if victims use social media platforms to “name and shame” the men who raped them, the perpetrators have also sued their alleged victims for libel. This discussion examines the effectiveness of turning to defamation law as a means of redressing grievances in #MeToo cases, and also applies critical legal theory to these cases. In other words, if there is pervasive structural inequity in the legal system, meaning that perpetrators are often wealthy and powerful men who can easily afford attorneys’ fees, can victims still prevail in court, or can wealthy and powerful perpetrators buy their victims’ silence with non-disclosure agreements?
{"title":"Fighting back: Is defamation law a double-edged sword for #MeToo victims?","authors":"J. Dee","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1977160","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1977160","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During the past half-century, countless women have been victims of sexual harassment, groping, and rape. When the #MeToo Movement gained momentum in October 2017, women who had victimized began to speak out. If women who were victims of sexual predators had not originally reported being raped but came forward as part of the #MeToo movement two or three decades later and the perpetrators denied it (in essence, accusing the victims of lying), their only legal recourse has been to sue the sexual predators for defamation. The law of defamation is a double-edged sword, however, because if victims use social media platforms to “name and shame” the men who raped them, the perpetrators have also sued their alleged victims for libel. This discussion examines the effectiveness of turning to defamation law as a means of redressing grievances in #MeToo cases, and also applies critical legal theory to these cases. In other words, if there is pervasive structural inequity in the legal system, meaning that perpetrators are often wealthy and powerful men who can easily afford attorneys’ fees, can victims still prevail in court, or can wealthy and powerful perpetrators buy their victims’ silence with non-disclosure agreements?","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47514024","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1970609
Amy Pason, P. File
ABSTRACT This article analyzes the legal discourse surrounding two armed anti-government confrontations – at Bunkerville, Nevada, in 2014, and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016 – to understand how the public makes sense of the relationship between First and Second Amendment rights. Using the concept of non-judicial precedents and drawing on legal scholarship following District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we find that public meaning-making mirrors concerns raised by legal scholars about using First Amendment logics to understand Second Amendment rights, conflating the two in meaning and practice. Discourse surrounding these armed confrontations focused on whether guns were needed to protect speech rights, the rhetoric of patriotism, and the contested constitutional primacy of speech versus guns. We argue that this case study demonstrates the need for communication scholars to problematize the logics that intertwine the First and Second Amendments, especially as the nation confronts the normalization of the use of guns in political protest, conflict, and insurrection.
{"title":"Protesting with guns and conflating the First and Second Amendments: The case of the Bundys","authors":"Amy Pason, P. File","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1970609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1970609","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes the legal discourse surrounding two armed anti-government confrontations – at Bunkerville, Nevada, in 2014, and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016 – to understand how the public makes sense of the relationship between First and Second Amendment rights. Using the concept of non-judicial precedents and drawing on legal scholarship following District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), we find that public meaning-making mirrors concerns raised by legal scholars about using First Amendment logics to understand Second Amendment rights, conflating the two in meaning and practice. Discourse surrounding these armed confrontations focused on whether guns were needed to protect speech rights, the rhetoric of patriotism, and the contested constitutional primacy of speech versus guns. We argue that this case study demonstrates the need for communication scholars to problematize the logics that intertwine the First and Second Amendments, especially as the nation confronts the normalization of the use of guns in political protest, conflict, and insurrection.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47818959","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}
Pub Date : 2021-07-03DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1986414
Sharon Docter
ABSTRACT This paper will argue that non-institutional media such as bloggers should be accorded the same First Amendment protection as institutional media under libel laws. Supreme Court precedent supports making no distinction between the institutional and non-institutional media. The status of the plaintiff is relevant in libel actions, not the status of the defendant. Moreover, when bloggers disseminate information that is a matter of public concern, they are functioning as journalists. Many federal courts have adopted this functional approach when determining whether bloggers can be protected by shield laws. This paper argues that the same standard should apply to libel laws.
{"title":"Libel laws and the non-institutional press","authors":"Sharon Docter","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1986414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1986414","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper will argue that non-institutional media such as bloggers should be accorded the same First Amendment protection as institutional media under libel laws. Supreme Court precedent supports making no distinction between the institutional and non-institutional media. The status of the plaintiff is relevant in libel actions, not the status of the defendant. Moreover, when bloggers disseminate information that is a matter of public concern, they are functioning as journalists. Many federal courts have adopted this functional approach when determining whether bloggers can be protected by shield laws. This paper argues that the same standard should apply to libel laws.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44742399","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1886966
Erica R. Salkin, Colin Messke
ABSTRACT While all colleges and universities are challenged by questions about free expression in the current environment, private higher educational institutions do so without the constitutional mandate of their public counterparts. Some private colleges and universities have sought to independently affirm their commitment to free speech through statements of principle or purpose. This study explores those statements in an attempt to understand if – and how – free expression is presented as worth protecting in private higher education.
{"title":"Opting in: Free expression statements at private universities and colleges in the US","authors":"Erica R. Salkin, Colin Messke","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1886966","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1886966","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT While all colleges and universities are challenged by questions about free expression in the current environment, private higher educational institutions do so without the constitutional mandate of their public counterparts. Some private colleges and universities have sought to independently affirm their commitment to free speech through statements of principle or purpose. This study explores those statements in an attempt to understand if – and how – free expression is presented as worth protecting in private higher education.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2021.1886966","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46560275","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}
Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1895863
C. Kelly
ABSTRACT This essay argues that recent controversies over conservative speakers on college campuses are an opaque vehicle for White supremacy. Revisiting Herbert Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance through the lens of Critical Race Theory, this essay sketches the features of repressive victimhood: the advancement of categorical minority status orchestrated to shield white people from charges of intolerance while reframing counterspeech as commensurate with overt bigotry.
{"title":"Whiteness, repressive victimhood, and the foil of the intolerant left","authors":"C. Kelly","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1895863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1895863","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay argues that recent controversies over conservative speakers on college campuses are an opaque vehicle for White supremacy. Revisiting Herbert Marcuse’s concept of repressive tolerance through the lens of Critical Race Theory, this essay sketches the features of repressive victimhood: the advancement of categorical minority status orchestrated to shield white people from charges of intolerance while reframing counterspeech as commensurate with overt bigotry.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2021.1895863","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44515794","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}