The Misconceived Search for the Meaning of “Speech” in Freedom of Speech

DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2015.51005   PDF   HTML   XML   5,117 Downloads   5,646 Views   Citations

Abstract

In this (very) short essay, I establish these points: All speech is symbolic; any conduct can be used to communicate a message (i.e., symbolically); government’s purpose in regulating, and not a speaker’s intention to communicate, defines the realm of freedom of expression; and determining the value of speech has a denominator problem.

Share and Cite:

Alexander, L. (2015) The Misconceived Search for the Meaning of “Speech” in Freedom of Speech. Open Journal of Philosophy, 5, 39-42. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2015.51005.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Alexander, L. (1989). Low Value Speech. Northwestern University Law Review, 83, 547-554.
[2] Alexander, L. (2005). Ch. 2: Freedom of Expression and Regulations that Affect Messages But are Not Enacted for That Reason. In Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? (pp. 13-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614668.003
[3] Benjamin, S. M. (2013). Algorithms and Speech. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161, 1445-1494.
[4] Calvert, C. (2013). Fringes of Free Expression: Testing the Meaning of “Speech” Amid Shifting Cultural Mores & Changing Technologies. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 22, 545-590.
[5] International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 830 (1992).
[6] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
[7] Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
[8] Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977).
[9] Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
[10] Rubenfeld, J. (2001). The First Amendment’s Purpose. Stanford Law Review, 52, 767-832.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1229492
[11] Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939).
[12] United States v. O’Brien, 397 U.S. 367 (1968).
[13] Symbolic Expression and the Original Meaning of the First Amendment. The Georgetown Law Journal, 97, 1057-1084.
[14] Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985).
[15] Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948).
[16] Wu, T. (2013). Machine Speech. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 161, 1495-1533.
[17] Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 (1976).

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.