Defending the First: Commentary on the First Amendment Issues and Cases (Lea's Communication)

229 Pages·2005·1.17 MB·English

by  Joseph Russomanno

DEFENDING THE FIRST
LEA’s Communication Series
Jennings Bryant/Dolf Zillmann, General Editors
SelectedtitlesinMassCommunication(AlanRubin,AdvisoryEditor)include:
Alexander/Owers/Carveth/Hollifield/Greco•Media Economics: Theory
and Practice, Third Edition
Bryant/Bryant•Television and the American Family, Second Edition
Harris•A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication, Fourth Edition
Kundanis•Children, Teens, Families, and Mass Media: The Millennial
Generation
Moore•Mass Communication Law and Ethics, Second Edition
Palmer/Young•The Faces ofTelevisualMedia: Teaching, Violence, Selling to
Children, Second Edition
Perse•Media Effects and Society
Russomanno•Speaking Our Minds: Conversations With the People Behind
Landmark First Amendment Cases
Valkenburg•Children’s Responses to the Screen: A Media Psychological
Approach
VanEvra•Television and Child Development, Third Edition
For a complete list of titles in LEA’s Communication Series, please contact
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers at www.erlbaum.com
DEFENDING THE FIRST
COMMENTARY ON FIRST AMENDMENT
ISSUES AND CASES
Edited by
Joseph Russomanno
Arizona State University
LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS
2005 Mahwah, New Jersey London
Dedicated to the spirit of
freedom of expression
and to those willing to fight for it
yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”
Copyright © 2005 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedin
any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any
other means, without prior written permission of the pub-
lisher.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
www.erlbaum.com
Cover design by SeanSciarrone
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Defending the First : commentary on First Amendment issues
and cases / edited by JosephRussomanno
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-4925-4 (cloth :alk. paper)
1. UnitedStates.Constitution.1stAmendment.2.Freedomof
speech—UnitedStates.3.Freedomofthepress—United
States. I.Russomanno, Joseph.
KF4770.D44 2004
342.7308’53—dc22 2004056425
CIP
ISBN 1-4106-1350-X Master e-book ISBN
CONTENTS
Foreword vii
NadineStrossen
Preface xv
1 Creating a New First Amendment Right: Miami Herald 1
Publishing Co. v. Tornilloand the Story of Access to the
Media
Jerome A. Barron
2 Whose First Amendment? Cohen v.CowlesMedia Co. 23
Elliot C.Rothenberg
3 Freedom of Speech: A Casualty of War 45
Dan Johnston
4 The “Miracle” of Burstynv. Wilson 61
MarjorieHeins
5 Suppressing Hateful Ideas By Force of Law: Reflections 85
on R.A.V. v. St. Pauland Virginia v. Black
Edward J.Cleary
6 Anatomy of an Oral Argument 111
Rodney A.Smolla
7 A First Amendment Life 139
Bruce S.Rogow
v
vi CONTENTS
8 The First Amendment in the Age of the Internet: The 163
U.S. Supreme Court Takes on the Challenge of a New
Communication Medium
Paul M. Smith
9 The Past, Present, and Future of Internet Censorship 185
and Free Speech Advocacy
John B. Morris, Jr.
Table of Cases 203
Index 207
FOREWORD
Nadine Strossen1
DefendingtheFirstisanenlighteningcollectionoffascinatingfirst-handaccounts
ofsomerecentmajorfreespeechcases.Eachessayisacompellingnarrativeinits
ownright,andtogether,theyallunderscoreimportantconclusionsandongoing
questionsaboutFirstAmendmentprinciples,especiallywhenviewedthrough
the lens of Joseph Russomanno’s thought-provoking introductions to each
chapter.Eachoftheseintroductionsmanagestoframecomplexlegalquestions
withremarkableconciseness—thisbookshouldprovideanexcitingintroduc-
tionfortheFirstAmendmentneophyte.Additionally,forFirstAmendmentex-
perts, this work offers a stimulating re-examination of timeless concerns.
AlthoughIwasthoroughlyfamiliarwiththecasesandissuesdiscussed—because
Ihavetaughttheminmyconstitutionallawclasses,andtheACLUwasdirectly
involvedinalmostallofthecases,Istillgainedvaluablenewinsightsfromeach
chapteranditsthoughtfulintroduction.Inshort,nomatterhowlittleorhow
muchFirstAmendmentbackgroundanyreadermightbringtothisbook,heor
sheshouldfinditilluminating,aswellasengaging.
NO FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH EVER STAYS WON
TheACLU’sprincipalfounder,RogerBaldwin,observedthat“Nofightfor
civillibertieseverstayswon.”2DefendingtheFirstunderscoresthatimportant
insightinthefreespeechcontext.Forexample,DanJohnston’schapterex-
plainshowthecaseofTinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDis-
trict3 (in which he was acting as a “cooperating attorney” for the ACLU’s
1Professor of Law, New York Law School; President, American Civil Liberties Union.
2LindseyGruson,SecondThoughtsonMomentsofSilenceintheSchools,N.Y.TIMES,Mar.4,
1984, at 6E.
3393 U.S. 503 (1969).
vii
viii FOREWORD
Iowaaffiliate)constitutesnotanewvictoryforstudents’freespeechrights
inwartime,butratherareaffirmationofearliersuchvictories.Evenso,Tin-
ker still deserves its usual accolade as a “landmark” case, because we can
nevertakeforgrantedthattheSupremeCourtwillupholdbasicconstitu-
tional liberties, including free speech rights, in times of war or other na-
tionalcrisis—especiallywhenthespeakersarepoliticallypowerless,asisthe
case with students too young to vote.
Consistentwithournation’shistoricalpatternofsuppressingdissenting
voicesduringwartime,Tinker’sreaffirmationofstudents’righttocriticizethe
government’s war policies has not “stayed won” in the nation’s ongoing
post-9/11“WaronTerrorism,”asindicatedbyamorerecentACLUcase,on
behalfofMichiganhighschoolstudentBrettonBarber.In2003,BretBarber
was disciplined for wearing a T-shirt with a message criticizing President
Bush’sIraqpolicies,despitethefactthatBretexpresslycitedtheTinkerpre-
cedenttohisschoolofficials.AlthoughBretBarber’srightswereultimately
vindicatedincourt,4itisstilldisturbingthathisschoolauthoritiesdidnotvol-
untarily honor the longstanding First Amendment principles at stake. Ac-
cordingly,DanJohnston’scommentconcerningtheTinkerstudentplaintiffs
remains true today concerning Bret Barber and other student plaintiffs:
“The failure of their school authorities…to recognize [their free speech
rights]demonstratesthefragilityoftheruleoflawintimesofwar.”
InadditiontoDanJohnston’schapter,thechaptersbyMarjorieHeins,Ed-
wardJ.Cleary,RodneyA.Smolla,BruceRogow,PaulM.Smith,andJohnB.
Morris,Jr.,alsoallbearwitnesstothenecessityofregularlyrefightingoldfree
speechbattlessothattheycan“staywon”innewcircumstances.Foronething,
theHeins,Smith,andMorrischaptersillustratetheconstantstruggletoensure
that courts and other government officials will apply the First Amendment’s
guaranteeof“thefreedomofspeech”tonewmediaforconveyingspeech.As
MarjorieHeinsremindsus,whentheSupremeCourtfirstconsideredachal-
lengetocensorshipofthethen-newfilmmediumin1915,theCourtconcluded
thatmoviesdidnotconstitute“speech”thatisshelteredbytheFirstAmend-
ment.5Evenmoreastonishing,fromourcurrentvantagepoint,isthefactthat
theCourtdidnotoverturnthatrulinguntilfourdecadeslater,in1952,whenit
finallyacknowledgedthatcinemais“asignificantmediumforthecommunica-
tionofideas”6andhencesubjecttoFirstAmendmentprotection.
Likewise,PaulSmithandJohnMorrisremindusthatwhentheInternet
burstontothepublicandpoliticalradarscreenlittle morethanadecade
ago,thegovernmentstronglyarguedthatitconstitutedonlysecond-class
speech,subjecttostrictgovernmentregulationofitscontent,similartothat
imposed on the broadcastmedia. Although the Supreme Court resound-
4Barber v. Dearborn Public Schools, 286 F. Supp. 2d 847 (E.D. Mich. 2003).
5Mutual Film Corp. v. IndustrialComm’nof Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915).
6Burstyn v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495, 505-06 (1952).
FOREWORD ix
inglyrejectedthatgovernmentargumentinitsunanimousrulinginRenov.
ACLU7 that ruling was not at all a foregone conclusion, given the Court’s
pastreluctancetobringnewmediafullyintotheFirstAmendmentfold,as
evidenced by its treatment of both film and broadcasting.
TheHeinschapterillustratestheconstantstruggletoprotectfreespeech
notonlyinemergingnewmedia,butalsofromreligiouslymotivatedcen-
sorship.Althoughherchapterfocusesonthesuppression offilmcontent
fromthe1930suntilthe1950s,inresponsetopressurefromtheCatholic
Church, she also cites several much more recent examples—from 1988
through 2002—of religiously inspired suppression of artistic expression.
Evenmorerecently,in2004,theFederalCommunicationsCommission
actuallyincorporatedreligiousconceptsintoitsbroad,vaguedescriptionof
indecent expression that is barred from the broadcast media. The FCC’s
standardsforforbiddenbroadcastindecencynowproscribeanythingthatis
profane.Thistermexplicitlyharksbacktonotionsofblasphemyorsacrilege,
such as those that animated the 1951–1952 crusade against Roberto
Rossellini’s acclaimed film The Miracle, which Heins recounts. Moreover,
thebanonbroadcastprofanitywasadoptedinresponsetoaconcertedcam-
paign by leaders of the so-called “Religious Right” for the FCC to crack
downonbroadcastexpressionthatoffendstheirreligiousandmoralsensi-
bilities.ThiscampaignwasstimulatedbythebriefflashofJanetJackson’s
breast during the January 2004 televised Super Bowl halftime show.
Stillmorerecently,inthewakeofthe2004elections,withsomepollsindi-
cating that “moral values” may have played a decisive role in many voters’
minds,“ReligiousRight”organizationsandspokespersonshaverenewedtheir
calls for further restrictions on expression that they deem inconsistent with
their moral or religious values. Therefore, the kinds of religiously inspired
threatstofreeexpressionthatHeinsdescribesarelikelytobeofasmuchcon-
cernintheimmediatefutureastheyhavebeeninthemoredistantpast.
BruceRogow’schaptercitesmanyexamplesofgovernmentofficialsvio-
latingwhatformerSupremeCourtJusticeWilliamBrennantermedthebed-
rock principle8 of our free speech law: the concept of content neutrality or
viewpoint neutrality, which holds that government may never limit speech
just because any listener—or even, indeed, the majority of the commu-
nity—disagrees with or is offended by its content or the viewpoint it con-
veys.Accordingly,asRogow’schapterchronicles,herepeatedlyhadtofight
forthisfundamentalfreespeechpreceptincasesinvolvingexpressionthat
wasoffensivetoparticularpoliticallypowerful,vocalconstituencies,rang-
ing from Republican Party leaders who were offended by David Duke’s
whitesupremaciststatements,toCuban-Americanswhowereoffendedby
7521 U.S. 844 (1997).
8Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).