Pub Date : 2021-01-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2021.1886967
E. Brewer, Chrys Egan
ABSTRACT For the past 100 years, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, from 1919 has stood as a landmark case due to the Court’s creation of a “Clear and Present Danger” standard of freedom of speech. Through the vehicle of the Clear and Present Danger measure, the Court reconsidered that the degree of freedom for inflammatory rhetoric could be legally permissible until the point that realistic danger of harm or illegal action might occur. One century after this ruling, this paper examines the unprecedentedly divisive and uncivil public rhetoric of a US President, Donald J. Trump. Through a descriptive analysis summarizing the characteristics of President Trump’s rhetoric, we contend that Trump generates a level of dangerous Presidential communication not publicly expressed by previous Presidents that arguably could be considered to overstep the limits of free expression set forth by the courts.
{"title":"Clear and present danger standard 100th anniversary: Examining Donald J. Trump’s “presidential” rhetoric as a clear and present danger","authors":"E. Brewer, Chrys Egan","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2021.1886967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2021.1886967","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT For the past 100 years, the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, from 1919 has stood as a landmark case due to the Court’s creation of a “Clear and Present Danger” standard of freedom of speech. Through the vehicle of the Clear and Present Danger measure, the Court reconsidered that the degree of freedom for inflammatory rhetoric could be legally permissible until the point that realistic danger of harm or illegal action might occur. One century after this ruling, this paper examines the unprecedentedly divisive and uncivil public rhetoric of a US President, Donald J. Trump. Through a descriptive analysis summarizing the characteristics of President Trump’s rhetoric, we contend that Trump generates a level of dangerous Presidential communication not publicly expressed by previous Presidents that arguably could be considered to overstep the limits of free expression set forth by the courts.","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/10.1080/21689725.2021.1886967","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44591730","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837650
Sangeetha Thanapal
ABSTRACT This paper examines the use of colonial era laws to restrict free speech in Singapore, along with more recent laws that are meant to stifle criticism of the state. It draws a link between current statutes and colonial laws, showing that two of the fundamental decrees restricting free speech in Singapore originated from British colonialism. It concludes by pointing out that free speech does exist in Singapore in some respects, in that it remains the sole purview of the state which exercises free speech liberally but uses the Singaporean justice system to deny the same for its citizens.
{"title":"The neo-colonized entity: Examining the ongoing significance of colonialism on free speech in Singapore","authors":"Sangeetha Thanapal","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1837650","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837650","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This paper examines the use of colonial era laws to restrict free speech in Singapore, along with more recent laws that are meant to stifle criticism of the state. It draws a link between current statutes and colonial laws, showing that two of the fundamental decrees restricting free speech in Singapore originated from British colonialism. It concludes by pointing out that free speech does exist in Singapore in some respects, in that it remains the sole purview of the state which exercises free speech liberally but uses the Singaporean justice system to deny the same for its citizens.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837650","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46394375","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1838844
Christiaan Pipion
{"title":"African Americans and the First Amendment: The case for liberty and equality","authors":"Christiaan Pipion","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1838844","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1838844","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1838844","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48866334","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837654
C. Elers, P. Jayan
ABSTRACT Whiteness as an ideology is the default norm constituting the infrastructures of New Zealand’s polity. Built with the master’s tool of racism, the mechanics of free speech in Aotearoa, New Zealand is embedded in whiteness that holds fast to liberal expressions of free speech, while dehumanising and denigrating indigenous and minority coloured realities. New Zealand’s ambivalence towards legislative acknowledgement that Māori tribal nations did not cede sovereignty to a foreign land as confirmed in te- Tiriti o Waitangi, is an epic human rights violation that is the precursor to a litany of human rights violations upon Māori and minority groups that followed. Freedom of speech discourse has been utilised as an impenetrable shield to justify threatening, offensive and abusive attacks – both psychologically and physically upon indigenous and minority groups. Massey University’s pursuit of a te-Tiriti led university actioned the cancelling of a known public speaker that negatively targets and stereotypes Māori, leading to national outrage at the perceived denial of the right to freedom of speech. The effects of racist and dehumanising speech upon targeted groups was again missing from public discourse. We attempt to illuminate the marginalised realities of indigenous and minority groups on the flipside of free speech discourse.
{"title":"“This is us”: Free speech embedded in whiteness, racism and coloniality in Aotearoa, New Zealand","authors":"C. Elers, P. Jayan","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1837654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837654","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Whiteness as an ideology is the default norm constituting the infrastructures of New Zealand’s polity. Built with the master’s tool of racism, the mechanics of free speech in Aotearoa, New Zealand is embedded in whiteness that holds fast to liberal expressions of free speech, while dehumanising and denigrating indigenous and minority coloured realities. New Zealand’s ambivalence towards legislative acknowledgement that Māori tribal nations did not cede sovereignty to a foreign land as confirmed in te- Tiriti o Waitangi, is an epic human rights violation that is the precursor to a litany of human rights violations upon Māori and minority groups that followed. Freedom of speech discourse has been utilised as an impenetrable shield to justify threatening, offensive and abusive attacks – both psychologically and physically upon indigenous and minority groups. Massey University’s pursuit of a te-Tiriti led university actioned the cancelling of a known public speaker that negatively targets and stereotypes Māori, leading to national outrage at the perceived denial of the right to freedom of speech. The effects of racist and dehumanising speech upon targeted groups was again missing from public discourse. We attempt to illuminate the marginalised realities of indigenous and minority groups on the flipside of free speech discourse.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837654","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46694789","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837653
Amardo Rodriguez
ABSTRACT In this paper, I look critically at a recent statement put out by NCA’s Executive Committee on hate speech. Rather than promoting diversity and civility, I contend that this statement distorts and diminishes our understanding of communication, ultimately impeding the rise of new diversities and possibilities.
{"title":"Problems with a statement","authors":"Amardo Rodriguez","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1837653","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837653","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, I look critically at a recent statement put out by NCA’s Executive Committee on hate speech. Rather than promoting diversity and civility, I contend that this statement distorts and diminishes our understanding of communication, ultimately impeding the rise of new diversities and possibilities.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837653","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46939507","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837649
C. Carlson
ABSTRACT Hate speech is more than just expression used to malign people based on their fixed identity characteristics. It is a tool deployed by those with various forms of power to maintain their social, political, or economic dominance. It puts its victims in a subordinate position, which makes equality all but impossible. Therefore, we must reconsider the near absolute protection afforded to hate speech under the First Amendment. Americans should utilize existing civil legal remedies to combat hate speech, which only serves to maintain systems of oppression such as white supremacy, gender inequity, and heteronormativity. By opening the door to civil penalties against the subordination caused by hate speech, we pave the way for those seeking equality to achieve it.
{"title":"Hate speech as a structural phenomenon","authors":"C. Carlson","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1837649","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837649","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Hate speech is more than just expression used to malign people based on their fixed identity characteristics. It is a tool deployed by those with various forms of power to maintain their social, political, or economic dominance. It puts its victims in a subordinate position, which makes equality all but impossible. Therefore, we must reconsider the near absolute protection afforded to hate speech under the First Amendment. Americans should utilize existing civil legal remedies to combat hate speech, which only serves to maintain systems of oppression such as white supremacy, gender inequity, and heteronormativity. By opening the door to civil penalties against the subordination caused by hate speech, we pave the way for those seeking equality to achieve it.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837649","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45072689","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837652
E. Chebrolu
ABSTRACT This article analyses how anti-blackness structures the desire for free speech within white nationalist ideology. The essay traces the linkages between the rhetoric of a mission statement for a white nationalist webzine edited by a professor of psychology and that professor’s published academic work on ethnic identity. The central argument of the essay is that taken together, these texts construct an antisemitic fantasy of a crisis in free speech, in which free speech is an object of desire because of its promise to recuperate a loss rendered unto the white nation, anchored by an attachment to the anti-black bio-evolutionary origin myth of humanness.
{"title":"Free speech and loss in white nationalist rhetoric","authors":"E. Chebrolu","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1837652","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837652","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyses how anti-blackness structures the desire for free speech within white nationalist ideology. The essay traces the linkages between the rhetoric of a mission statement for a white nationalist webzine edited by a professor of psychology and that professor’s published academic work on ethnic identity. The central argument of the essay is that taken together, these texts construct an antisemitic fantasy of a crisis in free speech, in which free speech is an object of desire because of its promise to recuperate a loss rendered unto the white nation, anchored by an attachment to the anti-black bio-evolutionary origin myth of humanness.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837652","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60484003","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837651
Soo-Hye Han
ABSTRACT This essay provides a closer look at the controversy over the shutdown of an art exhibit titled “After ‘Freedom of Expression?’” at the 2019 Aichi Triennale in Japan. While heated debates over freedom of expression ensued following its closure, larger structural issues underpinning the incident and the “Statue of a Girl of Peace,” an artwork symbolizing the victims of sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese military, were left unexamined by the media and the public. This paper takes issue with such absence and explicates how debates over free speech that fails to address colonial legacy, historical revisionism, and obstinate racism can sustain the suppression of the marginalized. This paper considers hypocritical deployment of free speech arguments that perpetuates the subjugation of racial minorities in Japan and concludes with a call for transnational coalitions to combat a growing tide of nationalism, historical revisionism, and misogyny in Japan and beyond.
{"title":"Stifled by freedom of expression: The “Statue of a Girl of Peace” and the legacy of colonialism and historical revisionism in Japan","authors":"Soo-Hye Han","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1837651","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837651","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This essay provides a closer look at the controversy over the shutdown of an art exhibit titled “After ‘Freedom of Expression?’” at the 2019 Aichi Triennale in Japan. While heated debates over freedom of expression ensued following its closure, larger structural issues underpinning the incident and the “Statue of a Girl of Peace,” an artwork symbolizing the victims of sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese military, were left unexamined by the media and the public. This paper takes issue with such absence and explicates how debates over free speech that fails to address colonial legacy, historical revisionism, and obstinate racism can sustain the suppression of the marginalized. This paper considers hypocritical deployment of free speech arguments that perpetuates the subjugation of racial minorities in Japan and concludes with a call for transnational coalitions to combat a growing tide of nationalism, historical revisionism, and misogyny in Japan and beyond.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837651","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46138539","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1837655
A. Hill
ABSTRACT In 2018, mobile phone videos went viral of white people calling police to report Black people for engaging in innocuous conduct. Dubbed “white caller crime” by some commentators, mainstream and social media afforded serious and satiric attention to racist harassment via police calls. In this article, I analyze these police calls as a form of racist expression that operates as a call to harm. I begin by recounting three calls that went viral in consecutive months in 2018. I then theorize how the calls play out white supremacist and colonial logics of race and place, and I explore how viral publicity provides a viable strategy of resistance to racist expression. I close by contending that publicity, and the responses it has inspired, holds more promise for contesting racist police calls than a predictable turn to law and punishment under a hate speech framework.
{"title":"Free Speech v. Free Blacks: Racist policing and calls to harm","authors":"A. Hill","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1837655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837655","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2018, mobile phone videos went viral of white people calling police to report Black people for engaging in innocuous conduct. Dubbed “white caller crime” by some commentators, mainstream and social media afforded serious and satiric attention to racist harassment via police calls. In this article, I analyze these police calls as a form of racist expression that operates as a call to harm. I begin by recounting three calls that went viral in consecutive months in 2018. I then theorize how the calls play out white supremacist and colonial logics of race and place, and I explore how viral publicity provides a viable strategy of resistance to racist expression. I close by contending that publicity, and the responses it has inspired, holds more promise for contesting racist police calls than a predictable turn to law and punishment under a hate speech framework.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1837655","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47989964","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2020.1838842
Kevin A. Johnson
When I began my academic study of the First Amendment about 20 years ago, the topics seemed pretty straightforward. The journal was then named Free Speech Yearbook, and took on some of the most conventional First Amendment issues. The early essays of the journal were written by scholars like Franklyn Haiman and Robert O’Neill and included topics like reviewing the year’s legal rulings in the courts about free speech, the practice of free speech on college campuses, bibliographies of First Amendment research, and what I would consider to be core First Amendment issues like censorship in the broadcasting medium, political protests including controversies like flag burning, and the examination of specific jurists on First Amendment issues. Over time, we have seen the nature of First Amendment studies proliferate as more and more subject areas that were not traditionally associated with the First Amendment have become First Amendment issues. This has also meant that scholars who may have never thought about themselves as First Amendment scholars are now finding themselves studying the First Amendment. For example, scholars that are interested in the study of agriculture may have never envisioned themselves becoming First Amendment scholars in cases about food libel. Gun rights scholars may not have envisioned themselves being First Amendment scholars in the study of cases involving the freedom to print and share 3D blueprints of guns. Technology experts may never have envisioned themselves making arguments about the extent to which First Amendment rights apply to artificial intelligence (like Amazon’s Alexa), or of the advancement of deep fakes. Scientists may not have envisioned themselves studying the First Amendment freedom to experiment with human cloning (i.e., the experiment as the expression of the idea of cloning). The list goes on and on. Scholars in these different areas are increasingly finding themselves bumping into First Amendment considerations. I think it is conceivable that, if we are not already, all of us will study the First Amendment in at least some small way at some point in our academic careers. Therefore, it has become increasingly important for the First Amendment Studies journal to serve as a place to centrally converse about the nature and scope of First Amendment issues in our evolving landscape. As Editor, I find it noteworthy to highlight two important features of the journal. Each of these features, I believe, will provide a clear way of addressing the evolution of First Amendment Studies in order to continue studying the core First Amendment areas found in the history of the journal, while also
{"title":"On the evolution and definition of ‘First Amendment studies’: Do we all engage in First Amendment studies?","authors":"Kevin A. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2020.1838842","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2020.1838842","url":null,"abstract":"When I began my academic study of the First Amendment about 20 years ago, the topics seemed pretty straightforward. The journal was then named Free Speech Yearbook, and took on some of the most conventional First Amendment issues. The early essays of the journal were written by scholars like Franklyn Haiman and Robert O’Neill and included topics like reviewing the year’s legal rulings in the courts about free speech, the practice of free speech on college campuses, bibliographies of First Amendment research, and what I would consider to be core First Amendment issues like censorship in the broadcasting medium, political protests including controversies like flag burning, and the examination of specific jurists on First Amendment issues. Over time, we have seen the nature of First Amendment studies proliferate as more and more subject areas that were not traditionally associated with the First Amendment have become First Amendment issues. This has also meant that scholars who may have never thought about themselves as First Amendment scholars are now finding themselves studying the First Amendment. For example, scholars that are interested in the study of agriculture may have never envisioned themselves becoming First Amendment scholars in cases about food libel. Gun rights scholars may not have envisioned themselves being First Amendment scholars in the study of cases involving the freedom to print and share 3D blueprints of guns. Technology experts may never have envisioned themselves making arguments about the extent to which First Amendment rights apply to artificial intelligence (like Amazon’s Alexa), or of the advancement of deep fakes. Scientists may not have envisioned themselves studying the First Amendment freedom to experiment with human cloning (i.e., the experiment as the expression of the idea of cloning). The list goes on and on. Scholars in these different areas are increasingly finding themselves bumping into First Amendment considerations. I think it is conceivable that, if we are not already, all of us will study the First Amendment in at least some small way at some point in our academic careers. Therefore, it has become increasingly important for the First Amendment Studies journal to serve as a place to centrally converse about the nature and scope of First Amendment issues in our evolving landscape. As Editor, I find it noteworthy to highlight two important features of the journal. Each of these features, I believe, will provide a clear way of addressing the evolution of First Amendment Studies in order to continue studying the core First Amendment areas found in the history of the journal, while also","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2020.1838842","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42851143","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：