TITLE

IMAGINARY THREATS TO GOVERNMENT'S EXPRESSIVE INTERESTS

AUTHOR(S)
Norton, Helen
PUB. DATE
June 2011
SOURCE
Case Western Reserve Law Review;Summer2011, Vol. 61 Issue 4, p1265
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses the exemption of the government's own speech from the free speech clause scrutiny of the U.S. Supreme Court. It highlights the importance of government expression which enables members of the public to identify the priorities of the government. It emphasizes the court case "Garcetti v. Ceballos" which addresses the government expressive interests under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
ACCESSION #
65957556

 

Related Articles

  • CAMPAIGN SPEECH LAW WITH A TWIST: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT IS THE SPEAKER, NOT THE REGULATOR. Norton, Helen // Emory Law Journal;2011, Vol. 61 Issue 2, p209 

    Although government entities frequently engage in issue-related campaign speech on a variety of contested ballot and legislative measures, this fact has been entirely overlooked in contemporary First Amendment debates over campaign speech law specifically and government speech more generally....

  • Government Nonendorsement. Tebbe, Nelson // Minnesota Law Review;2013, Vol. 98 Issue 2, p648 

    The article discusses the constitutional limits on government endorsements in America as of December 2013, focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court, America's government speech doctrine, and the Free Speech Clause which is contained in the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution. The...

  • To DEFER OR NOT TO DEFER? DEFERENCE AND ITS DIFFERENTIAL IMPACT ON FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN THE ROBERTS COURT. Calvert, Clay; Hayes, Justin B. // Case Western Reserve Law Review;Fall2012, Vol. 63 Issue 1, p13 

    The article presents information on the concept of deference in context with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which protects the rights of individuals to freedom of speech under the Roberts Court which refers to the U.S. Supreme Court. It also mentions about disagreements among the...

  • FROM ARMBANDS TO DOUCHEBAGS: How DONINGER V. NIEHOFF SHOWS THE SUPREME COURT NEEDS TO ADDRESS STUDENT SPEECH IN THE CYBER AGE. Hayes, Allison E. // Akron Law Review;2010, Vol. 43 Issue 1, p247 

    The article discusses several First Amendment student speech cases including the Doninger v. Niehoff decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The author explains that the First Amendment of the Constitution stipulates that the Congress shall make no law that abridged the freedom of speech. She reveals...

  • The "Bong Hits" Case and Viewpoint Discrimination: A State Law Answer to Protecting Unpopular Student Viewpoints. Mayor, Evan // George Washington Law Review;Apr2009, Vol. 77 Issue 3, p799 

    This article aims to determine the level of protection provided by the First Amendment to student speech in the U.S. It explores the struggle by giving a brief history of student speech law, including relevant decisions by the Supreme Court. It also assesses the state of the law regarding the...

  • ANTAGONISM AND A FREE SOCIETY.  // Free Speech Yearbook;1973, Vol. 12, p13 

    The article focuses on antagonism and its relation to the free speech. It mentions that research studies regarding dogmatism and rigidity shows that antagonism is far the idea of private property. It mentions that free speech was conceptualized in consideration to the decision of the U.S....

  • Minority Opinion.  // Time; 

    The article focuses on the controversial views of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1962. The First Amendment guarantees absolute freedom of speech and the press. Black says that the First Amendment leaves the offenders like...

  • The Free Speech Jurisprudence of the Rehnquist Court.  // Free Speech Yearbook;1991, Vol. 29, p83 

    An essay is presented on free speech jurisprudence under the leadership of U.S. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist during his 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 U.S. Supreme Court terms. The author states that those observers who criticized Rehnquist Court's jurisprudence for cutting back on individual...

  • GOOD ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK: TWO CHEERS FOR CONTENT NEUTRALITY. Kreimer, Seth F. // University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law;May2014, Vol. 16 Issue 5, p1261 

    When then-Professor Elena Kagan emerged on the public stage in the mid-1990s, she declared "the distinction between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech serves as the keystone of First Amendment law." In the last decade and a half, commentators and Supreme Court opinions...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics