Catalog
-
How free can the press be?
Bezanson, Randall P.Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 2003.The First Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, but the definitions of 'press', of 'freedom', and even of 'abridgment' have evolved by means of judicial rulings on cases concerning the limits and purposes of press freedoms. In "How Free Can the Press Be?" Randall P. Bezanson explores the changes in understanding of press freedom in America by discussing in depth nine of the most pivotal and provocative First Amendment cases in U.S. judicial history. These cases were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, state Supreme Courts, and even a local circuit court, and concerned matters ranging from "The New York Times'" publication of the "Pentagon Papers" to Hugo Zacchini, the human cannonball who claimed television broadcasts of his act threatened his livelihood.Other cases include a politician blackballed by the "Miami Herald" and prevented from responding in its pages, the "Pittsburgh Press" arguing it had the right to employ gender-based column headings in its classified ads section, and the victim of a crime suing the "Des Moines Register" over that paper's publication of intimate details, including the victim's name.Each case resulted in a ruling that refined or reshaped judicial definition of the limits of press freedom. Does the First Amendment give the press a special position under the law? Is editorial judgment a cornerstone of the press? Does the press have a duty to publish truth and fact, to present both sides of a story, to respect the privacy of individuals, to obtain its information through legally acceptable means? How does press freedom weigh against national security? Bezanson addresses these and other questions, examining the arguments on both sides, and using these landmark cases as a springboard for a wider discussion of the meaning and limits of press freedom.
-
How free can the press be?
Bezanson, Randall P.Urbana : University of Illinois Press, c2003.The First Amendment to the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, but the definitions of 'press', of 'freedom', and even of 'abridgment' have evolved by means of judicial rulings on cases concerning the limits and purposes of press freedoms. In "How Free Can the Press Be?" Randall P. Bezanson explores the changes in understanding of press freedom in America by discussing in depth nine of the most pivotal and provocative First Amendment cases in U.S. judicial history. These cases were argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, state Supreme Courts, and even a local circuit court, and concerned matters ranging from "The New York Times'" publication of the "Pentagon Papers" to Hugo Zacchini, the human cannonball who claimed television broadcasts of his act threatened his livelihood.Other cases include a politician blackballed by the "Miami Herald" and prevented from responding in its pages, the "Pittsburgh Press" arguing it had the right to employ gender-based column headings in its classified ads section, and the victim of a crime suing the "Des Moines Register" over that paper's publication of intimate details, including the victim's name.Each case resulted in a ruling that refined or reshaped judicial definition of the limits of press freedom. Does the First Amendment give the press a special position under the law? Is editorial judgment a cornerstone of the press? Does the press have a duty to publish truth and fact, to present both sides of a story, to respect the privacy of individuals, to obtain its information through legally acceptable means? How does press freedom weigh against national security? Bezanson addresses these and other questions, examining the arguments on both sides, and using these landmark cases as a springboard for a wider discussion of the meaning and limits of press freedom.
-
Free speech on trial : communication perspectives on landmark Supreme Court decisions
Tuscaloosa, Ala. : University of Alabama Press, 2003.Describes landmark free speech decisions of the Supreme Court while highlighting the issues of language, rhetoric, and communication that underlie them. At the intersection of communication and First Amendment law reside two significant questions: What is the speech we ought to protect, and why should we protect it? The 20 scholars of legal communication whose essays are gathered in this volume propose various answers to these questions, but their essays share an abiding concern with a constitutional guarantee of free speech and its symbiotic relationship with communication practices. Free Speech on Trial fills a gap between textbooks that summarize First Amendment law and books that analyze case law and legal theory. These essays explore questions regarding the significance of unregulated speech in a marketplace of goods and ideas, the limits of offensive language and obscenity as expression, the power of symbols, and consequences of restraint prior to publication versus the subsequent punishment of sources. As one example, Craig Smith cites Buckley vs. Valeo to examine how the context of corruption in the 1974 elections shaped the Court's view of the constitutionality of campaign contributions and expenditures. Collectively, the essays in this volume suggest that the life of free speech law is communication. The contributors reveal how the Court's free speech opinions constitute discursive performances that fashion, deconstruct, and reformulate the contours and parameters of the Constitution's guarantee of free expression and that, ultimately, reconstitute our government, our culture, and our society.
Guides
Library website
Exhibits
EarthWorks
More search tools
Tools to help you discover resources at Stanford and beyond.
