Big Ag阻碍了言论自由

Q2 Social Sciences First Amendment Studies Pub Date : 2014-01-02 DOI:10.1080/21689725.2014.888859
Joshua Frye
{"title":"Big Ag阻碍了言论自由","authors":"Joshua Frye","doi":"10.1080/21689725.2014.888859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the course of the past three years a wave of bills attempting to restrict freedom of expression has surged in statehouses across the United States. These bills reflect a political strategy within the agriculture industry to stifle public participation in industrial meat production regulation and oversight. This essay analyzes this ag gag legislation as a political strategy using communication theory. Specifically, the analysis compares the language and intent in the first set of ag gag legislation (circa early 1990s) with the most recent set (circa 2011-2013) and argues that the more recent ag gag legislation hinges on repressing the freedom of expression. The analysis finds message framing, pre-empting the public screen, and discursive closure, are utilized to prevent negative publicity and reinforce the boundary between private and public with problematic implications for democratic practices.","PeriodicalId":37756,"journal":{"name":"First Amendment Studies","volume":"48 1","pages":"27 - 43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2014.888859","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Big Ag Gags the Freedom of Expression\",\"authors\":\"Joshua Frye\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21689725.2014.888859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the course of the past three years a wave of bills attempting to restrict freedom of expression has surged in statehouses across the United States. These bills reflect a political strategy within the agriculture industry to stifle public participation in industrial meat production regulation and oversight. This essay analyzes this ag gag legislation as a political strategy using communication theory. Specifically, the analysis compares the language and intent in the first set of ag gag legislation (circa early 1990s) with the most recent set (circa 2011-2013) and argues that the more recent ag gag legislation hinges on repressing the freedom of expression. The analysis finds message framing, pre-empting the public screen, and discursive closure, are utilized to prevent negative publicity and reinforce the boundary between private and public with problematic implications for democratic practices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37756,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"First Amendment Studies\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"27 - 43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/21689725.2014.888859\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"First Amendment Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2014.888859\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"First Amendment Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2014.888859","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在过去的三年里,一波试图限制言论自由的法案在美国各州议会中激增。这些法案反映了农业行业内部的一种政治策略,即阻止公众参与工业肉类生产的监管和监督。本文运用传播学理论分析了这一政治策略。具体来说,分析比较了第一套反歧视法(大约在20世纪90年代初)和最新一套反歧视法(大约在2011-2013年)的语言和意图,并认为最新的反歧视法依赖于压制言论自由。分析发现,信息框架、预先占领公共屏幕和话语封闭被用来防止负面宣传,并加强私人和公共之间的界限,这对民主实践有问题的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Big Ag Gags the Freedom of Expression
In the course of the past three years a wave of bills attempting to restrict freedom of expression has surged in statehouses across the United States. These bills reflect a political strategy within the agriculture industry to stifle public participation in industrial meat production regulation and oversight. This essay analyzes this ag gag legislation as a political strategy using communication theory. Specifically, the analysis compares the language and intent in the first set of ag gag legislation (circa early 1990s) with the most recent set (circa 2011-2013) and argues that the more recent ag gag legislation hinges on repressing the freedom of expression. The analysis finds message framing, pre-empting the public screen, and discursive closure, are utilized to prevent negative publicity and reinforce the boundary between private and public with problematic implications for democratic practices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
First Amendment Studies
First Amendment Studies Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: First Amendment Studies publishes original scholarship on all aspects of free speech and embraces the full range of critical, historical, empirical, and descriptive methodologies. First Amendment Studies welcomes scholarship addressing areas including but not limited to: • doctrinal analysis of international and national free speech law and legislation • rhetorical analysis of cases and judicial rhetoric • theoretical and cultural issues related to free speech • the role of free speech in a wide variety of contexts (e.g., organizations, popular culture, traditional and new media).
期刊最新文献
The digital citizen as technoliberal subject: The politics of constitutive rhetoric in the European Union’s Digital Decade The Supreme Court’s rhetorical construction of home On the censoring of Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb An accounting from Dr. Ahlam Muhtaseb The rhetoric of democracy in United States Senate campaign debates
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
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
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
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
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