DOCSLIB.ORG

019530439X.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
019530439X.Pdf uninhibited, robust, and wide-open INALIENABLE RIGHTS SERIES < series editor Geoffrey R. Stone Lee C. Bollinger Michael W. McConnell President Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for Columbia University the Tenth Circuit Alan M. Dershowitz Martha C. Nussbaum Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Ernst Freund Distinguished Service Harvard Law School Professor, Philosophy, Law, Divinity, South Asian Studies Richard A. Epstein The University of Chicago James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Richard A. Posner University of Chicago Law School Judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Pamela S. Karlan Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Jack N. Rakove Professor of Public Interest Law William Robertson Coe Professor of Stanford Law School History and American Studies Stanford University Alexander Keyssar Matthew W. Stirling, Jr., Geoffrey R. Stone Professor of History and Social Policy Harry Klaven, Jr., Distinguished Service JFK School of Government, Harvard Professor University University of Chicago Law School Michael J. Klarman Kathleen M. Sullivan James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Stanley Morrison Professor of Law and Law and History Former Dean University of Virginia Stanford Law School Larry D. Kramer Laurence H. Tribe Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Carl M. Loeb University Dean Professor of Law Stanford Law School Harvard Law School Lawrence Lessig Mark V. Tushnet C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law Professor of Law Stanford Law School Harvard Law School Geoffrey Stone and Oxford University Press gratefully acknowledge the interest and support of the following organizations in the Inalienable Rights series: The ALA; The Chicago Humanities Festival; The American Bar Association; The National Constitution Center; The National Archives. other books in the series Not a Suicide Pact The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency Richard A. Posner Supreme Neglect How to Revive Constitutional Protection for Private Property Richard A. Epstein Out of Range Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle over Guns Mark V. Tushnet Unfi nished Business Racial Equality in American History Michael J. Klarman Is There a Right to Remain Silent? Coercive Interrogation and the Fifth Amendment After 9/11 Alan M. Dershowitz The Invisible Constitution Laurence H. Tribe From Disgust to Humanity Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law Marth Nussbaum This page intentionally left blank Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open < a free press for a new century Lee C. Bollinger 1 2010 3 Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education. Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Copyright © 2010 by Oxford University Press Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Bollinger, Lee C., 1946– Uninhibited, robust, and wide-open : a free press for a new century / Lee C. Bollinger. p. cm.—(Inalienable rights series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-19-530439-8 1. Freedom of the press—United States. I. Title. KF4774.B66 2010 342.7308'53—dc22 2009023784 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For Jean, Lee & Jen, and Carey This page intentionally left blank Contents< Acknowledgments xi chapter one Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open 1 chapter two It Is an Experiment 44 chapter three Regardless of Frontiers 68 chapter four The Touchstone 107 contents Epilogue 162 Notes 164 Index 199 [ x ] Acknowledgments< I have many people to thank for help and assistance on this book, and it is a great pleasure to be able to single out many of them here. The invitation from Oxford University Press to write a volume on freedom of the press, which I accepted well in advance of a dead- line for submission of a manuscript, gave me the opportunity and the challenge over time to think anew about ideas and issues that have occupied my attention for much of my life (beginning as a young boy doing menial tasks in the small-town daily newspaper run by my father). Writing is never a continuous process from start to fi nish, but there must be some sustained period in which that is your only focus. The trustees of Columbia University made it possible for me to use the summer of 2008 for this purpose. That yielded a draft which I could then periodically return to and build on, as further research and refl ection permitted. The editor of the Oxford series on rights, Geoffrey Stone, has been not only a friend and colleague since we met in 1972 but also an outstanding critic and commentator on the First Amendment. Along with his expert comments, I benefi ted from the thoughtful advice of Oxford Senior Editor David McBride and the careful production by Senior acknowledgments Production Editor Jessica Ryan. Overseeing and managing the entire process was my outstanding assistant Carla Matero. In Esha Bhandari, Devi Rao, and Jennifer Sokoler, I had the best research assistants one could hope for. And Judith Shulevitz added a percep- tive and critical outside editor’s eye to help bring the fi nal drafts to completion. Susan Glancy, my Chief of Staff, helped balance the work of the president’s offi ce so that writing could fi nd its place. There were many who generously volunteered to help—giving advice, sharing their expertise, reading and commenting on drafts, listening attentively even to inchoate ideas, giving interviews, and generally sharing their enthusiasm for the project. I am indebted and thankful to every one of these individuals: Floyd Abrams, Steve Adler, Jose Alvarez, Kofi Annan, Vincent Blasi, Alan Brinkley, Robert Burt, Kathleen Carroll, Nigel Chapmen, Kevin Close, David Drummond, Sig Gissler, Don Graham, Kent Greenawalt, Miklos Haraszti, David Ignatius, Merit Janow, Nicholas Lemann, Menachern Mautner, Navanethem (Navi) Pillay, Jeff Sachs, Karl Sauvant, Joseph Sax, Joel Simon, Paul Steiger, David Stone, Gwyneth Williams, and Mark Wood. Lastly, I wish to thank my wife, Jean. As always, she was there from the beginning to the end—living together the experiences that generated the ideas, happily engaging in conversation about them, and reading and commenting perceptively on the evolving book. Most of all I am forever grateful for the inspiration she continually provides to do right by the world. I should only note by way of disclosure that I currently serve as a director of The Washington Post Co. It nearly goes without saying that I alone am responsible for everything in this book. [ xii ] uninhibited, robust, and wide-open This page intentionally left blank chapter< one Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open The American press, sheltered from censorship by an elaborate body of case law under the First Amendment and sometimes prodded by public regulations to serve the public interest, is one of the greatest achievements of the United States. Wherever you go in the world, journalists envy it. Every year in April, as president of Columbia University, I sit for two days with distinguished journalists to decide which newspapers and reporters will win the Pulitzer prizes in jour- nalism. If you could be there and witness the deliberations (and the painstaking labors of the juries that sift through the nominees and recommend the fi nalists for each category), you would be struck by the professional standards manifest in the entries and used to select the winners. You would be impressed by the sense of mission that infuses journalists, moved by the dangers they overcome to get their stories, and thankful for the good they accomplish. Part of what is amazing about journalism in America is that, despite the fact that it operated for most of the twentieth century as a business, it differed from the typical business model in important uninhibited, robust, and wide-open ways. First, journalism was suffused with a strong sense of mission to serve the public interest. Second, the press was largely able to maintain editorial independence, despite pressures from the state or the commercial interests of their own publications. Third, it was shielded by a constitutional cocoon of protection from the legal accountability ordinarily applicable to comparable businesses. And fourth, much of the media enjoyed the advantages of strong—even monopolistic—economic positions in their markets. Since the advent of the Internet in the late twentieth century, many American press organizations—particularly newspapers and magazines—have been struggling to remain profi table, and many of them have closed. How American journalism can sustain its autonomy, sense of mission, and a workable fi nancial model has become one of the urgent questions of our time. Nonetheless, America still leads the world in defi ning journalistic values. For some, it is the model or beacon. For others, it seems appealing but counterintuitive and improbable that a society could organize itself in this way with such a high potential for irresponsibility, instability, and chaos. Still other nations simply envision the role of the press very differently, largely as an arm of the state. And, it must be said, even those that are nearest to the United States in their commit- ment to a democratic form of government (such as Great Britain, Germany, and France) have sometimes arrived at a different balance when it comes to the press and other societal interests.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television
    Washington University Law Review Volume 92 Issue 5 2015 The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television Ellen Alexandra Eichner Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Communications Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Alexandra Eichner, The Seven Dirty Words You Should Be Allowed to Say on Television, 92 WASH. U. L. REV. 1353 (2015). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol92/iss5/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SEVEN DIRTY WORDS YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SAY ON TELEVISION I. INTRODUCTION Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.1 For any American who has turned on his or her television since 1978 and tuned into one of the traditional broadcast networks—ABC, NBC, CBS, or Fox—these seven words have been conspicuously absent from broadcasting. Confusingly, with a flip of the remote over to a premium cable television station, these seven words may all occur in quick succession on one television show.2 When one of them does happen to make it to air on a broadcast network, it often becomes the source of an astronomical fine from the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) and years of litigation between the network and the federal government.3 A recent case resulted in a huge victory for broadcasters.
    [Show full text]
  • Offensive Language Spoken on Popular Morning Radio Programs Megan Fitzgerald
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2007 Offensive Language Spoken on Popular Morning Radio Programs Megan Fitzgerald Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF COMMUNICATION OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE SPOKEN ON POPULAR MORNING RADIO PROGRAMS By MEGAN FITZGERALD A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Communication in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2007 The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Megan Fitzgerald defended on October 31, 2007. Barry Sapolsky Professor Directing Dissertation Colleen Kelley Outside Committee Member Jay Rayburn Committee Member Gary Heald Committee Member Steven McClung Committee Member Approved: Stephen McDowell, Chair, Communication John K. Mayo, Dean, Communication The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Patrick and Kathleen Fitzgerald. Thank you for supporting all that I do—even when I wanted to grow up to be the Pope. By watching you, I learned the power of teaching by example. And, you set the best. Thank you. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation was completed under the guidance of my major professor, Dr. Barry Sapolsky. Dr. Sapolsky not only served as my major professor, but also as a mentor throughout my entire graduate program. He was a constant source of encouragement, motivation, and, at times, realism. In addition to serving on my committee, he also gave me the opportunity to work in the Communication Research Center.
    [Show full text]
  • A New “Slant” on Pacifica?
    A New “Slant” on Pacifica? BY LEITA WALKER AND MICHAEL GIUDICESSI o paraphrase one observer: in Pacifica,” the Federal Circuit tried to Though its members diverged in their somewhere up there, George explain.6 reasoning, the Supreme Court unani- Carlin is smiling.1 Even so, there’s hope for vulgarity- mously affirmed (Justice Gorsuch took First, in June 2017, in loving true believers (a small but fierce no part in consideration or decision of TMatal v. Tam,2 the Supreme Court contingent, we imagine) that Carlin the case). struck as unconstitutional the Lan- may freely shout his seven dirty words The government raised three ham Act’s prohibition on the from the afterlife with the metaphysi- arguments in defense of the dispar- registration of “disparaging” trade- cal knowledge that, “in this electronic/ agement clause: (1) that trademarks marks, ruling that “[s]peech may Internet age,” Federal Communica- are a form of government speech, not be banned on the ground that it tions Commission (FCC) licensees rendering the First Amendment inap- expresses ideas that offend.” may broadcast them without fear or plicable, (2) that they are a form of Then, in December 2017, the Fed- sanction. government subsidy, and the gov- eral Circuit decided In re Brunetti,3 The hope stems in part from Asso- ernment is not required to subsidize striking a similar prohibition barring ciate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s activities it does not wish to pro- registration of “immoral” or “scandal- public statement that Pacifica “was mote, and (3) that a new test—a ous”
    [Show full text]
  • "Indecent Proposal: the FCC and Four-Letter Words," Lawdragon.Com
    LAWYER PROFILES AND LEGAL NEWS Indecent Proposal: The FCC and Four-Letter Words By Debbie L. Berman and Wade A. Thomson In February 2006, the FCC issued an order resolving several complaints against various broadcasts. See 21 F.C.C.R. On the same day our nation went to the polls to elect 2664 (2006). The broadcasts at issue included Cher’s use its next president, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral of the F-word at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, Nichole argument on when the F-word is indecent as opposed to Richie’s use of the F-word at the 2003 Awards, NYPD Blue’s artistically integral. FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., et employment of several other expletives, and the use of al., No. 07-582, centers on the Federal Communications “bullshitter” during The Early Show. The FCC found all of Commission’s policy of punishing broadcasters for so-called these fleeting expletives to be indecent, thereby adding “fleeting expletives” during hours that children are expected “shit” to the presumptively indecent word list. The FCC later to be in the audience. The case involves several nebulous reversed its finding in regards to The Early Show because issues and important societal concerns, including the the fleeting expletive occurred during a news show, while increased sexual content on television, who should decide the uses of the F-word during the award shows were seen what is indecent and what guidelines should be used. as deliberate and gratuitous. History of FCC Indecency Policy and Fleeting These orders were consolidated for purposes of review Expletives by the 2nd Circuit in Fox v.
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC V. Pacifica Foundation Ann-Ellen Marcus
    Boston College Law Review Volume 20 Article 5 Issue 5 Number 5 7-1-1979 Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC v. Pacifica Foundation Ann-Ellen Marcus Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Communications Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Ann-Ellen Marcus, Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 20 B.C.L. Rev. 975 (1979), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol20/iss5/5 This Casenotes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASENOTES Broadcasting Seven Dirty Words: FCC v. Pacifica Foundation '—On October 30, 1973, at two o'clock in the afternoon, New York educational, non-profit radio station WBAI, owned by and licensed to the Pacifica Foundation, 2 aired a recorded twelve-minute satiric monologue by George Carlin entitled "Filthy Words." 3 The Carlin monologue was broadcast during the course of a regu- larly scheduled live program. The program, whose format consists of com- mentary by the host and listener call-ins, on this day was focusing on contem- porary society's attitudes towards language. 4 The record was played towards the end of the program, and was selected because "it was regarded as an incisive satirical view of the subject under discussion."' During the course of his monologue, Carlin repeatedly discusses the seven filthy words that "you couldn't say on the public ..
    [Show full text]
  • Fk Yea I Swear: Cursing and Gender in a Corpus of Myspace Pages 1
    1 of 20 Fk yea I swear: Cursing and gender in a corpus of MySpace pages 1 Mike Thelwall School of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton WV1 1SB, UK. E-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 1902 321470 Fax: +44 1902 321478 Youth-orientated social network sites like MySpace are important venues for socialising and identity expression. Analysing such sites can therefore give a timely window into otherwise hidden aspects of contemporary culture. In this article a corpus of MySpace member home pages is used to analyse swearing in the U.S. and U.K. The results indicate that most MySpaces of 16 year olds and about 15% of middle-aged MySpaces contain strong swearing, for both males and females. There was no significant gender difference in the U.K. for strong swearing, especially for younger users (16-19). This is perhaps the first large-scale evidence of gender equality in strong swearing frequency in any informal English language use context. In contrast, U.S. male MySpaces contain significantly more strong swearing than those of females. The U.K. female assimilation of traditionally male swearing in the informal context of MySpace is suggestive of deeper changes in gender roles in society, possibly related to the recent rise in ‘ladette culture’. Keywords : Swearing, gender, MySpace, social network sites. 1. Introduction MySpace is a highly popular youth oriented social network site, which apparently became the most visited web site in 2007 for U.S. web users (Prescott 2007). It has been described as replacing the (shopping) mall as the place where modern U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Onze Taal. Jaargang 82
    Onze Taal. Jaargang 82 bron Onze Taal. Jaargang 82. Genootschap Onze Taal, Den Haag 2013 Zie voor verantwoording: https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/_taa014201301_01/colofon.php Let op: werken die korter dan 140 jaar geleden verschenen zijn, kunnen auteursrechtelijk beschermd zijn. i.s.m. 1 [Nummer 1] Onze Taal. Jaargang 82 4 Gerda Havertong leest voor in het kinderprogramma Sesamstraat. Foto: Freek van Asperen / ANP Kippa Van voorlezen krijgen ze nooit genoeg Voorleesdiva's over het brengen van een verhaal Jan Erik Grezel Eind deze maand vinden voor de tiende keer De Nationale Voorleesdagen plaats. Bekende Nederlanders lezen op scholen overal in het land verhalen voor. Met deze campagne wil de initiatiefnemer Stichting Lezen het voorlezen stimuleren. Wat zijn de positieve effecten van voorlezen? Welke tips hebben professionals als Anke Kranendonk en Gerda Havertong? ‘Er was eens een ...’ De stem van Mirjam krult omhoog. Ze zit ontspannen op een kinderbed, haar peuters Sandra en Merijn met knuffels aan weerskanten. ‘... prinses’, zegt Sandra. ‘Precies! Er was eens ... een prinses’, leest Mirjam verder. ‘Die woonde in een gróóóót ...’ ‘... kasteel’, vult Merijn aan. ‘Ja, die woonde in een groot kasteel, want prinsessen wonen altijd in een groot kasteel.’ Dat mag zo zijn, deze prinses is niet gelukkig. Ze zit zonder prins. Dagelijks dienen zich huwelijkskandidaten aan, maar de een is ‘nog stommer’ dan de ander. Als Mirjam bij de passage komt waar de prinses in haar eentje het bos in gaat, fronst Sandra bezorgd de wenkbrauwen. ‘Wat zou ze daar gaan doen?’, vraagt Mirjam. Merijn schurkt nog dichter tegen z'n moeder aan.
    [Show full text]
  • Janet Jackson, the FCC and Indecency
    It was the Breast of Times, It was the Worst of Fines: Janet Jackson, The FCC and Indecency Interviewer: Emily Broeckaert Interviewee: Robert Ratcliffe Instructor: Alex Haight Date of Submission: February 13, 2013 Table of Contents Interviewee Release Form.................................................................................................P.2 Statement of Purpose.........................................................................................................P.3 Biography..........................................................................................................................P.4 Historical Contextualization..............................................................................................P.6 Interview Transcription.....................................................................................................P.22 Interview Analysis.............................................................................................................P.45 Appendix 1........................................................................................................................P.51 Appendix 2........................................................................................................................P.52 Works Consulted...............................................................................................................P.56 Broeckaert 3 Statement of Purpose The purpose of this project is to explore the history of obscenity and indecency laws in the United States from the 1800’s
    [Show full text]
  • Swearwords on the Main Characters of “Bohemian Rhapsody” Movie: Sociolinguistics Perspective
    i SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Getting Bachelor Degree of English Department By: TRIYONO A320150087 DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION SCHOOL OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH SURAKARTA 2019 APPROVAL SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATION ARTICLE Written by: TRIYONO A320150087 Approved by : Consultant Dr. Maryadi, MA. NIP: 19580304 198601 3 0 0 1 i ACCEPTANCE SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATION ARTICLE by: TRIYONO A320150087 Accepted by the Board Examiners English Departement School of Teacher and Training Education Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta On August 2019 The Board Examiners 1. Dr. Maryadi, M.A. ( ) (Head of Examiner) 2. Agus Wijayanto, Ph.D. ( ) (Member 1 of Examiner) 3. Drs. Sigit Haryanto, M.Hum ( ) (Member II of Examiner) Dean, Prof. Dr. Harun Prayitno, M. Hum. NIP. 19650428 199303 1 001 ii PRONOUNCEMENT Herewith, I testify that in this article there is no plagiarism of previous literary works which have been raised to obtain bachelor degree of certain university, nor there are opinions or masterpieces which have been written or published by others, except those in which the writing is referred to in the manuscript and mentioned in literary review and bibliography. Hence later, if it is proven that there are some untrue statements in this testimony, I will fully be responsible. Surakarta, 29th of July 2019 The writer Triyono A320150087 iii SWEARWORDS ON THE MAIN CHARACTERS OF “BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY” MOVIE: SOCIOLINGUISTICS PERSPECTIVE Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan (1) untuk menemukan tipe-tipe kata-kata umpatan oleh karakter utama di film “Bohemian Rhapsody” (2) untuk menemukan alasan kata- kata umpatan oleh karakter utama di film “Bohemian Rhapsody” untuk mengumpat.
    [Show full text]
  • Brunetti (Pet)
    No. In the Supreme Court of the United States ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER v. ERIK BRUNETTI ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART SARAH HARRIS Deputy Solicitor General General Counsel JONATHAN Y. ELLIS JOSEPH MATAL Assistant to the Solicitor Acting Solicitor General ARK REEMAN CHRISTINA J. HIEBER M R. F ANIEL ENNY THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE D T MARY BETH WALKER JOSHUA M. SALZMAN MOLLY R. SILFEN Attorneys Associate Solicitors Department of Justice U.S. Patent and Trademark Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Office [email protected] Alexandria, Va. 22314 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be re- fused registration if it “[c]onsists of or comprises im- moral * * * or scandalous matter.” The question pre- sented is as follows: Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is fa- cially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ...................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 10 I. The court of appeals’ invalidation of an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review ....................... 10 II. The court of appeals erred in holding that the scandalous-marks provision is unconstitutional ........
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 17 Freedom of Expression
    CHAPTER 17 FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 17.1 INTRODUCTION TO FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION First Amendment law is complex and chaotic. Our starting point is the text of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. By its terms, the rule is absolute: ‘‘Congress shall make no law . abridging the free- dom of speech.’’ But it has never been interpreted that way by the full Court, although from time to time some justices have advocated an absolutist approach. The Court recognizes that Congress and the states (after the First Amendment protections were made applicable to the states through incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) can limit freedom of expression in various ways, including by implementing reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and by treating some types of expression as less protected than others. The default rule is that all speech is protected, subject to certain limited exceptions for certain types of speech. The term ‘‘speech’’ is interpreted to include any means of expression, including oral, written, graphic, audio-visual, music, dance, and so on. If the government wants to regulate the content of protected speech (most speech is protected), its regulation must pass strict scrutiny. As stated by the Court: Content-based laws–those that target speech based on its communicative content– are presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.
    [Show full text]
  • Laughing at Censorship, 28 Yale J.L
    +(,121/,1( Citation: Laura E. Little, Laughing at Censorship, 28 Yale J.L. & Human. 161, 212 (2016) Provided by: Yale Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Oct 26 10:57:02 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information Use QR Code reader to send PDF to your smartphone or tablet device Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Vol. 28, Iss. 2 [2016], Art. 1 Laughing at Censorship Laura E. Little* INTRODUCTION Can a speech restriction ever be inherently good? Can we ever justify censorship as intrinsically beneficial, and not simply a justifiable means of protecting something more important than free expression? For those steeped in American law and culture, these questions may seem almost heretical. But they deserve exploring, particularly given the prevalence and variety of censorship in the United States and elsewhere in the world.' Happily, a context exists for exploring the questions that is less threatening and more entertaining than totalitarian thought control. The context is humor: jokes, cartoons, vignettes, and other expressions that make us laugh.2 Comedians know from experience, and research supports the proposition, that an audience will predictably laugh at a censored statement (specifically a "bleeped" or visually obscured statement) that the audience believes is censored. Does this "comedic truth" have deep significance for free speech theory and government censorship practices? U.S.
    [Show full text]