首页 > 最新文献

First Amendment Studies最新文献

英文 中文
Rhetorical interventions in the law: Interpreting “I ♥ Boobies!” 法律中的修辞干预:解读“我爱咪咪!”
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2016-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2016.1152907
B. Amsden
Abstract In 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a group of students were within their constitutional rights to wear breast cancer awareness bracelets that read: “I ♥ Boobies!” The majority opinion in B.H. and K.M. v. Easton Area School District called on judges to determine whether a student’s speech was “plainly” or “ambiguously” lewd, and also whether it could “plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues.” Cases like B.H. provide an excellent opportunity for rhetorical scholars to engage the law—asserting their expertise in the methods of interpretation germane to vernacular persuasive discourses.
2013年,第三巡回上诉法院裁定,一群学生戴上写着“我爱咪咪!”的乳腺癌意识手镯,这是宪法赋予他们的权利。在B.H.和K.M.诉伊斯顿地区学区案(B.H. and K.M. v. Easton Area School District)一案中,多数意见要求法官判断学生的言论是“明显”还是“含糊”猥亵,以及它是否可以“合理地被解释为对政治或社会问题的评论”。像B.H.这样的案例为修辞学学者提供了一个极好的机会,让他们参与到法律中来——主张他们在与白话说服性话语相关的解释方法方面的专业知识。
{"title":"Rhetorical interventions in the law: Interpreting “I ♥ Boobies!”","authors":"B. Amsden","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2016.1152907","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2016.1152907","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a group of students were within their constitutional rights to wear breast cancer awareness bracelets that read: “I ♥ Boobies!” The majority opinion in B.H. and K.M. v. Easton Area School District called on judges to determine whether a student’s speech was “plainly” or “ambiguously” lewd, and also whether it could “plausibly be interpreted as commenting on political or social issues.” Cases like B.H. provide an excellent opportunity for rhetorical scholars to engage the law—asserting their expertise in the methods of interpretation germane to vernacular persuasive discourses.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"50 1","pages":"1 - 13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2016.1152907","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483611","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}
引用次数: 1
Networked communication and the reprise of tolerance theory: Civic education for extreme speech and private governance online 网络传播与宽容理论的再现:极端言论的公民教育与网络私人治理
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2016-01-02 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2016.1154478
B. Johnson
Abstract Digital intermediaries such as Facebook and Twitter have the power to remove extreme or harmful speech from their platforms after individual users have “flagged” that speech. Such power over the public discourse in the hands of individuals and digital intermediaries raises concerns for online freedom of expression. This article asks: how can First Amendment principles be applied to assess this system of private governance of extreme speech? This article argues that Lee Bollinger’s tolerance theory offers the best interpretation of First Amendment principles to apply to assessing this system due to its unique focus on individual intolerance toward extreme speech.
Facebook和Twitter等数字中介机构有权在个人用户“标记”极端或有害言论后,从其平台上删除这些言论。这种掌握在个人和数字中介手中的公共话语权力,引发了人们对网络言论自由的担忧。本文提出的问题是:如何运用第一修正案的原则来评估这种对极端言论的私人治理制度?本文认为,Lee Bollinger的宽容理论提供了对第一修正案原则的最佳解释,适用于评估这一制度,因为它独特地关注个人对极端言论的不容忍。
{"title":"Networked communication and the reprise of tolerance theory: Civic education for extreme speech and private governance online","authors":"B. Johnson","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2016.1154478","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2016.1154478","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Digital intermediaries such as Facebook and Twitter have the power to remove extreme or harmful speech from their platforms after individual users have “flagged” that speech. Such power over the public discourse in the hands of individuals and digital intermediaries raises concerns for online freedom of expression. This article asks: how can First Amendment principles be applied to assess this system of private governance of extreme speech? This article argues that Lee Bollinger’s tolerance theory offers the best interpretation of First Amendment principles to apply to assessing this system due to its unique focus on individual intolerance toward extreme speech.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"50 1","pages":"14 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2016.1154478","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483672","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}
引用次数: 5
The Occupy Movement and the First Amendment: A Quandary 占领运动与第一修正案:进退两难
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1071982
Donald Fishman
One of the most interesting political developments of the past decade has been the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. OWS is a movement against the concentration of power and wealth in American society. Its chief target is the “One-Percenters,” a group of wealthy individuals and banking organizations depicted as having created a financial crisis and then profiting from the economic downturn through government bailouts. In addition, “One Percenters” are viewed by Occupiers as being instrumental in outsourcing jobs abroad thus hurting people “who work hard and play by the rules,” especially those who hold blue-collar jobs. Among the latter were people who retired from a company or were on disability but who lost their company-funded pensions when the company filed for bankruptcy. Ofer views OWS as a movement “bringing a much-needed voice to the victims of a decades-long march toward policies that benefit the rich over everyone else.” Like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) during the 1960s, OWS has no concrete demands and no leaders. Their concern is with the growing inequality that they believe harms 99 percent of the American public. As with SDS, what seems to unite the OWS movement is an anti-elitist, anti-establishment attitude, and its bottom-up approach to creating a new society. Said Occupier activist Ashley Hanisko, “We are fighting this idea that you are expendable if you are not wealthy. And if you are not wealthy, it’s through some fault of your own.” The belief that Wall Street has been too influential and is harming the national interest is one of the underlying tenets of the OWS movement. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich observed, the core message of the Occupiers is “that the increasing concentration of wealth in society poses a great danger to our democracy.” Even President Obama praised the concerns raised by the OWS movement: “The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration with how our finance sector works . . . The American people understand that not everybody’s been following the rules.”
过去十年中最有趣的政治发展之一是占领华尔街(OWS)运动的出现。占领华尔街是一场反对美国社会权力和财富集中的运动。它的主要目标是“1%”,这是一群富有的个人和银行组织,他们被描述为制造了金融危机,然后通过政府救助从经济衰退中获利。此外,“百分之一”被占领者视为将工作外包到国外的工具,从而伤害了“努力工作和遵守规则”的人,特别是那些从事蓝领工作的人。后者包括从公司退休或残疾的人,但当公司申请破产时,他们失去了公司提供的养老金。奥弗尔认为,占领华尔街运动是一场运动,“为几十年来一直倾向于让富人比其他人受益的政策的受害者带来了他们急需的声音。”就像20世纪60年代的“争取民主社会学生组织”(SDS)一样,占领华尔街运动没有具体的要求,也没有领导者。他们担心的是日益严重的不平等,他们认为这种不平等伤害了99%的美国公众。与SDS一样,将占领华尔街运动团结起来的似乎是一种反精英、反建制的态度,以及自下而上创建新社会的方法。占领者活动人士阿什利·哈尼斯科说:“我们正在与这种观念作斗争,即如果你不富有,你就是可牺牲的。如果你不富有,那是你自己的错。”华尔街的影响力太大,正在损害国家利益,这是占领华尔街运动的基本原则之一。正如前劳工部长罗伯特·赖希(Robert Reich)所观察到的那样,占领者的核心信息是“社会财富的日益集中对我们的民主构成了巨大的威胁。”就连奥巴马总统也对占领华尔街运动提出的担忧表示赞赏:“抗议者表达了对我们金融部门运作方式的更广泛的不满……美国人民明白,并非所有人都在遵守规则。”
{"title":"The Occupy Movement and the First Amendment: A Quandary","authors":"Donald Fishman","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1071982","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071982","url":null,"abstract":"One of the most interesting political developments of the past decade has been the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. OWS is a movement against the concentration of power and wealth in American society. Its chief target is the “One-Percenters,” a group of wealthy individuals and banking organizations depicted as having created a financial crisis and then profiting from the economic downturn through government bailouts. In addition, “One Percenters” are viewed by Occupiers as being instrumental in outsourcing jobs abroad thus hurting people “who work hard and play by the rules,” especially those who hold blue-collar jobs. Among the latter were people who retired from a company or were on disability but who lost their company-funded pensions when the company filed for bankruptcy. Ofer views OWS as a movement “bringing a much-needed voice to the victims of a decades-long march toward policies that benefit the rich over everyone else.” Like Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) during the 1960s, OWS has no concrete demands and no leaders. Their concern is with the growing inequality that they believe harms 99 percent of the American public. As with SDS, what seems to unite the OWS movement is an anti-elitist, anti-establishment attitude, and its bottom-up approach to creating a new society. Said Occupier activist Ashley Hanisko, “We are fighting this idea that you are expendable if you are not wealthy. And if you are not wealthy, it’s through some fault of your own.” The belief that Wall Street has been too influential and is harming the national interest is one of the underlying tenets of the OWS movement. As former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich observed, the core message of the Occupiers is “that the increasing concentration of wealth in society poses a great danger to our democracy.” Even President Obama praised the concerns raised by the OWS movement: “The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration with how our finance sector works . . . The American people understand that not everybody’s been following the rules.”","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"115 - 125"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071982","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483501","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}
引用次数: 0
Dreams of Sleeping in Public Spaces: The Occupy Wall Street Movement and Sleep as Symbolic Expression 在公共场所睡觉的梦:占领华尔街运动和睡眠作为象征性表达
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1071983
J. Dee
On September 17, 2011, about 1000 protesters converged in Zuccotti Park near the New York Stock Exchange in lower Manhattan. This was the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street movement, in which demonstrators expressed their objections to the “disastrous financial decisions that [had] enriched the few at the expense of the many.” The movement quickly spread to other cities; the protesters took the term “occupy” literally, meaning that they not only demonstrated during daytime hours, but brought tents and sleeping bags to create encampments where they could remain for days, weeks and months. In cities across the country, police arrested members of the Occupy movement when the protesters did not vacate the premises of private or public parks after police had warned them to do so. This discussion will begin with a close look at how city administrators responded to the Occupy movement in New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Chicago, including whether or not the protesters received permits. We will also take a close look at litigation resulting from the Occupy movement, including the question of whether sleeping in tents in a public space comprises symbolic expression that the First Amendment protects. We will also examine class action suits resulting from police tactics such as “trap-and-detain” or “kettling,” inconsistent enforcement of curfews, and blatant police brutality against demonstrators in cities such as Oakland, California.
2011年9月17日,大约1000名抗议者聚集在曼哈顿下城纽约证券交易所附近的祖科蒂公园。这是占领华尔街运动的开始,示威者表达了他们对“以牺牲多数人为代价让少数人富裕的灾难性金融决策”的反对。这场运动迅速蔓延到其他城市;抗议者对“占领”一词的理解是真实的,这意味着他们不仅在白天示威,还带着帐篷和睡袋搭建营地,他们可以在那里呆上几天、几周甚至几个月。在全国各地的城市,警察逮捕了“占领”运动的成员,因为抗议者在警察警告他们离开私人或公共公园后仍未撤离。本次讨论将从城市管理者如何应对发生在纽约、费城、华盛顿、洛杉矶、奥克兰和芝加哥的占领运动开始,包括抗议者是否获得了许可。我们还将密切关注占领运动引发的诉讼,包括在公共场所的帐篷里睡觉是否构成第一修正案所保护的象征性表达的问题。我们还将研究在加州奥克兰等城市,警察采取的“诱捕-拘留”或“壶压”等策略、不一致的宵禁执行以及警察对示威者的公然暴行所导致的集体诉讼。
{"title":"Dreams of Sleeping in Public Spaces: The Occupy Wall Street Movement and Sleep as Symbolic Expression","authors":"J. Dee","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1071983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071983","url":null,"abstract":"On September 17, 2011, about 1000 protesters converged in Zuccotti Park near the New York Stock Exchange in lower Manhattan. This was the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street movement, in which demonstrators expressed their objections to the “disastrous financial decisions that [had] enriched the few at the expense of the many.” The movement quickly spread to other cities; the protesters took the term “occupy” literally, meaning that they not only demonstrated during daytime hours, but brought tents and sleeping bags to create encampments where they could remain for days, weeks and months. In cities across the country, police arrested members of the Occupy movement when the protesters did not vacate the premises of private or public parks after police had warned them to do so. This discussion will begin with a close look at how city administrators responded to the Occupy movement in New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Chicago, including whether or not the protesters received permits. We will also take a close look at litigation resulting from the Occupy movement, including the question of whether sleeping in tents in a public space comprises symbolic expression that the First Amendment protects. We will also examine class action suits resulting from police tactics such as “trap-and-detain” or “kettling,” inconsistent enforcement of curfews, and blatant police brutality against demonstrators in cities such as Oakland, California.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"126 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071983","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483682","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}
引用次数: 1
The Vote as Voice: Tracing the Intersections of Feminism and Free Speech Through Emmeline Pankhurst’s Address “Freedom or Death” 投票即声音:从艾米琳·潘克赫斯特的演讲《自由还是死亡》看女权主义与言论自由的交叉点
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1080986
Kate Zittlow Rogness
At its core, feminist rhetorical scholarship is about freedom of expression. However, few scholars of free speech engage questions of gender, and those that do largely limit their focus to the harm expression has had on women, situating women objects of speech instead of speaking subjects. To create a stronger foundation from which free speech scholars may explore issues of gender, this paper seeks to suture together feminist and free speech scholarship by exploring how Emmeline Pankhurst’s speech, “Freedom or Death,” lends unique insight into how suffrage advocates envisioned the vote as voice.
女权主义修辞学的核心是关于言论自由。然而,很少有研究言论自由的学者涉及到性别问题,而那些研究言论自由的学者也在很大程度上将他们的注意力限制在言论对女性的伤害上,将女性置于言论的客体而不是言论的主体。为了为言论自由学者探索性别问题创造一个更坚实的基础,本文试图通过探索艾米琳·潘克赫斯特的演讲“自由或死亡”,将女权主义者和言论自由学者联系在一起,为选举权倡导者如何将投票视为声音提供了独特的见解。
{"title":"The Vote as Voice: Tracing the Intersections of Feminism and Free Speech Through Emmeline Pankhurst’s Address “Freedom or Death”","authors":"Kate Zittlow Rogness","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1080986","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1080986","url":null,"abstract":"At its core, feminist rhetorical scholarship is about freedom of expression. However, few scholars of free speech engage questions of gender, and those that do largely limit their focus to the harm expression has had on women, situating women objects of speech instead of speaking subjects. To create a stronger foundation from which free speech scholars may explore issues of gender, this paper seeks to suture together feminist and free speech scholarship by exploring how Emmeline Pankhurst’s speech, “Freedom or Death,” lends unique insight into how suffrage advocates envisioned the vote as voice.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"71 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1080986","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483509","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}
引用次数: 0
Naming Edward Snowden’s Actions as “Heroic” or “Villainous”: Implications for Interpreting First Amendment Trends 将爱德华·斯诺登的行为命名为“英雄”或“邪恶”:解读第一修正案趋势的含义
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1068468
Susan K. Opt
This essay examines the implications of stakeholder naming of Edward Snowden’s classified National Security Agency documents release. In naming Snowden’s activities as “heroic” or “villainous,” stakeholders are negotiating a context for accepting or rejecting his message and maintaining or revising the current trend that has favored increased governmental surveillance and secrecy over free expression and privacy protections since the events of 9/11. However, the inability of stakeholders to agree upon a name for Snowden has limited attention to Snowden’s message and hindered any potential trend reversal that might shift how US courts interpret his actions and of the First Amendment.
本文探讨了利益相关者命名爱德华·斯诺登的国家安全局机密文件发布的影响。在将斯诺登的行为称为“英勇”或“邪恶”时,利益相关者正在协商一种环境,以接受或拒绝他的信息,并维持或修改当前的趋势,即自9/11事件以来,倾向于加强政府监控和保密,而不是自由表达和隐私保护。然而,利益相关者无法就斯诺登的名字达成一致,这限制了人们对斯诺登信息的关注,也阻碍了任何可能改变美国法院对他的行为和第一修正案的解释的潜在趋势逆转。
{"title":"Naming Edward Snowden’s Actions as “Heroic” or “Villainous”: Implications for Interpreting First Amendment Trends","authors":"Susan K. Opt","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1068468","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1068468","url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines the implications of stakeholder naming of Edward Snowden’s classified National Security Agency documents release. In naming Snowden’s activities as “heroic” or “villainous,” stakeholders are negotiating a context for accepting or rejecting his message and maintaining or revising the current trend that has favored increased governmental surveillance and secrecy over free expression and privacy protections since the events of 9/11. However, the inability of stakeholders to agree upon a name for Snowden has limited attention to Snowden’s message and hindered any potential trend reversal that might shift how US courts interpret his actions and of the First Amendment.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"112 - 98"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1068468","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483445","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}
引用次数: 1
The Unsquared Square or Protest and Contemporary Publics 未平方广场或抗议与当代公众
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1071984
S. Drucker, G. Gumpert
Twenty-five years ago we began a critique of the public square as a site of social interaction and protest. We observed fear, distrust, decay, and the abandonment of cities and public space as social functions shifted to controllable private spaces. The automobile, the insulating character of air conditioners, and the ability to transcend local sites through telecommunication devices offered options siphoning life into new and complex configurations. We lamented the fall of the city and the rise of the “none-city”: the lifeless deserted, safe, predictable and boring collection of sameness known as suburban sprawl, particularly as found in the United States, but also present in European urban and suburban design and development. The village square, the community square, slowly began to deteriorate, sometimes even disappear, lost in the proliferation of strip malls of sameness. Traditional public spaces, be they formal downtown civic spaces or informal gathering spots integrated into neighborhoods, that once helped promote social interaction and a sense of community, began to disappear. Plazas, town squares, parks, marketplaces, public commons and malls, public greens, all places that provide social space—potential sites of human interaction and protest—decreased in number and function. We noted the civic functions of public space competed with media technology that shifts interaction inward, away from less predictable public contacts or corporeal threat. Then a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire in a public square serving as a catalyst for protests that would bring down dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, shake regimes in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain, and lead to a crackdown on Internet access as far away as China. Protests spread to Asia and Europe and eventually to the United States with the birth of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The events in Tahrir Square (Freedom or Liberty Square) in Cairo, Syntagma Square in Athens, Revolution Square in Moscow, and Zuccotti Park in New York (to name a few) have catapulted public places into the forefront of civic life once again and restored symbols of revolution.
25年前,我们开始批判公共广场作为社会互动和抗议的场所。随着社会功能向可控的私人空间转移,我们观察到城市和公共空间的恐惧、不信任、衰败和遗弃。汽车、空调的绝缘特性以及通过电信设备超越本地站点的能力提供了将生活引入新的复杂配置的选择。我们哀叹城市的衰落和“无城市”的兴起:毫无生气的、荒凉的、安全的、可预测的和无聊的千篇一律的集合被称为郊区蔓延,尤其是在美国,但也存在于欧洲的城市和郊区设计和发展中。村庄广场,社区广场,慢慢地开始恶化,有时甚至消失,迷失在千篇一律的条形商场中。传统的公共空间,无论是正式的市中心公共空间还是融入社区的非正式聚会场所,曾经有助于促进社会互动和社区意识,开始消失。广场、城市广场、公园、市场、公共场所和商场、公共绿地,所有提供社会空间的地方——人类互动和抗议的潜在场所——在数量和功能上都在减少。我们注意到,公共空间的公民功能与媒体技术竞争,媒体技术将互动转向内部,远离不可预测的公共接触或身体威胁。随后,一名突尼斯水果小贩在一个公共广场自焚,这引发了抗议活动,最终推翻了突尼斯、埃及和利比亚的独裁者,动摇了叙利亚、也门和巴林的政权,并导致远至中国的互联网接入受到打压。抗议活动蔓延到亚洲和欧洲,最终随着“占领华尔街”运动的诞生而蔓延到美国。在开罗的解放广场、雅典的宪法广场、莫斯科的革命广场和纽约的祖科蒂公园(仅举几例)发生的事件使公共场所再次成为公民生活的最前沿,并恢复了革命的象征。
{"title":"The Unsquared Square or Protest and Contemporary Publics","authors":"S. Drucker, G. Gumpert","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1071984","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071984","url":null,"abstract":"Twenty-five years ago we began a critique of the public square as a site of social interaction and protest. We observed fear, distrust, decay, and the abandonment of cities and public space as social functions shifted to controllable private spaces. The automobile, the insulating character of air conditioners, and the ability to transcend local sites through telecommunication devices offered options siphoning life into new and complex configurations. We lamented the fall of the city and the rise of the “none-city”: the lifeless deserted, safe, predictable and boring collection of sameness known as suburban sprawl, particularly as found in the United States, but also present in European urban and suburban design and development. The village square, the community square, slowly began to deteriorate, sometimes even disappear, lost in the proliferation of strip malls of sameness. Traditional public spaces, be they formal downtown civic spaces or informal gathering spots integrated into neighborhoods, that once helped promote social interaction and a sense of community, began to disappear. Plazas, town squares, parks, marketplaces, public commons and malls, public greens, all places that provide social space—potential sites of human interaction and protest—decreased in number and function. We noted the civic functions of public space competed with media technology that shifts interaction inward, away from less predictable public contacts or corporeal threat. Then a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire in a public square serving as a catalyst for protests that would bring down dictators in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, shake regimes in Syria, Yemen, and Bahrain, and lead to a crackdown on Internet access as far away as China. Protests spread to Asia and Europe and eventually to the United States with the birth of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The events in Tahrir Square (Freedom or Liberty Square) in Cairo, Syntagma Square in Athens, Revolution Square in Moscow, and Zuccotti Park in New York (to name a few) have catapulted public places into the forefront of civic life once again and restored symbols of revolution.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"138 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071984","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483753","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}
引用次数: 1
Forum on Occupy Wall Street 占领华尔街论坛
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1071985
J. Dee
This forum on the Occupy Wall Street movement approaches the 2011 phenomenon from several angles. In the first essay, “The Occupy Movement and the First Amendment: A Quandary,” Donald Fishman provides a discussion of the theoretical and legal background of the “speech plus conduct” issue. The Occupy Wall Street Movement and its affiliated protests around the country have raised important First Amendment issues about the novelty of using encampments to express core political speech. Neither the extensive protests of the civil rights movement nor the anti-Vietnam War activities during the 1960s utilized the strategy of a continuing, semi-permanent encampment on public space. Beginning in 2011, tensions arose between those using an encampment for a lengthy period of time and the government’s claims of substantial dangers to public safety and health. This essay examines the case law set forth under symbolic speech, and the unique issues surrounding the use of encampments as political agitation under First Amendment theory. In the second essay, “Dreams of Sleeping in Public Spaces: The Occupy Wall Street Movement and Sleep as Symbolic Expression,” Juliet Dee examines the litigation resulting from protesters suing city administrations and police departments for violating their First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of assembly. Although judges ruled in favor of municipal administrations or police departments in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Chicago, protesters in Los Angeles and Oakland, California reached out-of-court settlements with city governments. The real legacy of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, however, is that it “pushed the envelope” regarding the right to assemble not only during the day, but also at night, as in some cities in which protesters obtained permits to pitch tents and stay overnight as well. In the third essay, “The Unsquared Square or Protest and Contemporary Publics,” Susan Drucker and Gary Gumpert begin with a consideration of the effect of the Arab Spring on the Occupy Wall Street Movement. They then examine the reciprocal relationship between the use of public spaces such as the proverbial village squares and “mediated spaces” when we use smart phones and streaming video in place of face-to-face contact, as when members of the Occupy movement used their cell phone cameras to tweet images of how the police treated
这个关于占领华尔街运动的论坛从几个角度探讨了2011年的现象。在第一篇文章“占领运动和第一修正案:一个困境”中,唐纳德·菲什曼对“言论加行为”问题的理论和法律背景进行了讨论。“占领华尔街运动”(Occupy Wall Street Movement)及其在全国各地的附属抗议活动,已经提出了重要的第一修正案问题,即利用营地来表达核心政治言论的新颖性。无论是民权运动的大规模抗议活动,还是20世纪60年代的反越南战争活动,都没有利用在公共空间上持续、半永久性扎营的策略。从2011年开始,长期使用营地的人与政府声称对公共安全和健康存在重大危险的说法之间出现了紧张关系。本文考察了在象征性言论下的判例法,以及围绕在第一修正案理论下使用营地作为政治鼓动的独特问题。在第二篇文章“在公共场所睡觉的梦想:占领华尔街运动和睡眠作为象征性表达”中,朱丽叶·迪伊(Juliet Dee)研究了抗议者起诉城市管理部门和警察部门侵犯其第一修正案的言论自由和集会自由的诉讼结果。尽管纽约、费城、华盛顿特区和芝加哥的法官做出了有利于市政当局或警察局的裁决,但洛杉矶和加州奥克兰的抗议者与市政府达成了庭外和解。然而,占领华尔街运动的真正遗产在于,它不仅在白天集会,而且在夜间集会的权利上“挑战了极限”,在一些城市,抗议者获得了搭帐篷和过夜的许可。在第三篇文章“未平方的广场或抗议和当代公众”中,苏珊·德鲁克和加里·甘珀特首先考虑了阿拉伯之春对占领华尔街运动的影响。然后,他们研究了公共空间的使用之间的相互关系,比如众所周知的村庄广场和“中介空间”,当我们使用智能手机和流媒体视频代替面对面的接触时,就像占领运动的成员使用手机相机在twitter上发布警察如何对待他们的图像一样
{"title":"Forum on Occupy Wall Street","authors":"J. Dee","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1071985","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071985","url":null,"abstract":"This forum on the Occupy Wall Street movement approaches the 2011 phenomenon from several angles. In the first essay, “The Occupy Movement and the First Amendment: A Quandary,” Donald Fishman provides a discussion of the theoretical and legal background of the “speech plus conduct” issue. The Occupy Wall Street Movement and its affiliated protests around the country have raised important First Amendment issues about the novelty of using encampments to express core political speech. Neither the extensive protests of the civil rights movement nor the anti-Vietnam War activities during the 1960s utilized the strategy of a continuing, semi-permanent encampment on public space. Beginning in 2011, tensions arose between those using an encampment for a lengthy period of time and the government’s claims of substantial dangers to public safety and health. This essay examines the case law set forth under symbolic speech, and the unique issues surrounding the use of encampments as political agitation under First Amendment theory. In the second essay, “Dreams of Sleeping in Public Spaces: The Occupy Wall Street Movement and Sleep as Symbolic Expression,” Juliet Dee examines the litigation resulting from protesters suing city administrations and police departments for violating their First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of assembly. Although judges ruled in favor of municipal administrations or police departments in New York, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Chicago, protesters in Los Angeles and Oakland, California reached out-of-court settlements with city governments. The real legacy of the Occupy Wall Street Movement, however, is that it “pushed the envelope” regarding the right to assemble not only during the day, but also at night, as in some cities in which protesters obtained permits to pitch tents and stay overnight as well. In the third essay, “The Unsquared Square or Protest and Contemporary Publics,” Susan Drucker and Gary Gumpert begin with a consideration of the effect of the Arab Spring on the Occupy Wall Street Movement. They then examine the reciprocal relationship between the use of public spaces such as the proverbial village squares and “mediated spaces” when we use smart phones and streaming video in place of face-to-face contact, as when members of the Occupy movement used their cell phone cameras to tweet images of how the police treated","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"113 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1071985","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483327","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}
引用次数: 0
Online Editorial Board 在线编辑委员会
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1088227
{"title":"Online Editorial Board","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1088227","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1088227","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"ebi - ebi"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1088227","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483562","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}
引用次数: 0
A Special Kind of “Right”: The Supreme Court’s Affirmation of Academic Freedom 一种特殊的“权利”:最高法院对学术自由的肯定
Q2 Social Sciences Pub Date : 2015-07-03 DOI: 10.1080/21689725.2015.1078183
Robert J. Margesson
Debates surrounding the free speech rights of academics both inside and outside the classroom date back to the introduction of colleges and universities in the United States. That one gives up his or her right to free speech, at least in certain cases, when he or she chooses to associate with an institution of higher learning was, for a number of decades, a fairly uncontroversial stance for some. Others, however, believed that limiting the free expression of the professoriate was in the best interest of the institutions they represented and the students they influenced. During World War I and the years following, particularly draconian rules were implemented across the United States to assure that academics hostile to the war effort and/or sympathetic toward the enemy would not have access to a pulpit from which to indoctrinate the impressionable young men and women who looked up to them. The relationship between free speech and academic freedom was discussed with some regularity in the mainstream media during that time period but the legal community, especially the highest court in the land, paid sparse attention to that tense relationship; that disinterest changed during the Red Scare following World War II. The Red Scare and McCarthyism of the mid-1900s have a lengthy and complicated legal history. Multiple pieces of legislation were passed to stem the tide of communism, some with suspect constitutional support. The House Un-American Activities Committee tested the limits of the legislative branch along with the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Free speech, the foundation of the Bill of Rights, stared down challenge after challenge on both the state and federal level. Academic freedom was an active participant in this new legal landscape. The various laws and oaths put in place to wrestle communists from higher education often infringed upon the rights of college and university faculty. For that reason, it was only a matter of time before the Supreme Court was forced to address academic freedom’s place in the American legal landscape.
围绕学术界内外言论自由权的争论,可以追溯到美国学院和大学成立之初。至少在某些情况下,当一个人选择与一所高等学府交往时,他或她就放弃了言论自由的权利。几十年来,这对一些人来说是一个相当没有争议的立场。但也有人认为,限制教授的言论自由最符合他们所代表的院校和他们所影响的学生的利益。在第一次世界大战期间和之后的几年里,美国各地实施了特别严厉的规定,以确保对战争抱有敌意和/或同情敌人的学者无法进入讲坛,无法向敬仰他们的易受影响的年轻男女灌输思想。在那个时期,主流媒体经常讨论言论自由和学术自由之间的关系,但法律界,尤其是美国最高法院,对这种紧张关系的关注很少;在第二次世界大战后的红色恐慌期间,这种冷漠改变了。20世纪中期的红色恐慌和麦卡锡主义有着漫长而复杂的法律史。为了遏制共产主义浪潮,政府通过了多项立法,其中一些还受到宪法支持。众议院非美活动委员会测试了立法部门的界限以及第五修正案的含义。《权利法案》的基础——言论自由,在州和联邦层面上经受住了一次又一次的挑战。学术自由是这一新的法律格局的积极参与者。为了把共产主义者从高等教育中赶出去而制定的各种法律和誓言往往侵犯了学院和大学教师的权利。因此,最高法院被迫解决学术自由在美国法律领域的地位问题只是时间问题。
{"title":"A Special Kind of “Right”: The Supreme Court’s Affirmation of Academic Freedom","authors":"Robert J. Margesson","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2015.1078183","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2015.1078183","url":null,"abstract":"Debates surrounding the free speech rights of academics both inside and outside the classroom date back to the introduction of colleges and universities in the United States. That one gives up his or her right to free speech, at least in certain cases, when he or she chooses to associate with an institution of higher learning was, for a number of decades, a fairly uncontroversial stance for some. Others, however, believed that limiting the free expression of the professoriate was in the best interest of the institutions they represented and the students they influenced. During World War I and the years following, particularly draconian rules were implemented across the United States to assure that academics hostile to the war effort and/or sympathetic toward the enemy would not have access to a pulpit from which to indoctrinate the impressionable young men and women who looked up to them. The relationship between free speech and academic freedom was discussed with some regularity in the mainstream media during that time period but the legal community, especially the highest court in the land, paid sparse attention to that tense relationship; that disinterest changed during the Red Scare following World War II. The Red Scare and McCarthyism of the mid-1900s have a lengthy and complicated legal history. Multiple pieces of legislation were passed to stem the tide of communism, some with suspect constitutional support. The House Un-American Activities Committee tested the limits of the legislative branch along with the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Free speech, the foundation of the Bill of Rights, stared down challenge after challenge on both the state and federal level. Academic freedom was an active participant in this new legal landscape. The various laws and oaths put in place to wrestle communists from higher education often infringed upon the rights of college and university faculty. For that reason, it was only a matter of time before the Supreme Court was forced to address academic freedom’s place in the American legal landscape.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"49 1","pages":"86 - 97"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2015.1078183","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"60483453","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}
引用次数: 0
期刊
First Amendment Studies
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1