Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2016-01-02DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2015-07-03DOI: 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.”
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2015-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2015-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2015-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2015-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2015-07-03DOI: 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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Pub Date : 2015-07-03DOI: 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.
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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：