The Attorney General's Commission and the New Politics of Pornography

1987 ◽  
Vol 12 (04) ◽  
pp. 641-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald Downs
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Max Weber ◽  
Final Report ◽  
New Politics ◽  
Balanced Approach ◽  
The Press ◽  
Strong Concern

The 1986 Attorney General's Commission on Pornography Report (the 1986 Commission) is an important, yet puzzling, document. It is important because of the significance of the pornography issue, and because the Commission contributes to our understanding of pornography. The Commission is puzzling, however, because its conclusions appear simultaneously reasonable and unreasonable. Despite the condemnations of the press (on grounds of runaway censorship), the final report was actually cautious and restrained in many respects. The Commission limited its recommendations for censorship to what it considered the most degrading forms of pornography, and refused to endorse legal prohibitions that went beyond the scope of the traditional “obscenity” exception to the First Amendment. But the Commission also expressed a strong concern about the harms that pornography might engender. Given the eruption of violent and other questionable forms of pornography in recent years, this concern is hardly unreasonable. Furthermore, recent polls show that a majority of Americans favor restricting violent forms of pornography. In these respects the Commission's efforts appear to embody a committed, yet balanced, approach that considered different values (what Max Weber termed the ethic of responsibility).

scholarly journals Discarding Dariano: The Heckler's Veto and a New School Speech Doctrine

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien M. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
New School ◽  
The Press ◽  
Spoken Words

Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 26 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Of all of the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights, perhaps none inspire the level of interest and debate among both scholars and laypersons as the freedom of speech. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and it has long been held that “speech” encompasses not merely spoken words butany conduct which is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

The Dominant American View of Freedoms of Press and Speech, in the Decade Leading Up to Ratification of the Federal Bill of Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 303-336
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Source Material ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
Original Source ◽  
Narrow View ◽  
The Press ◽  
Freedom Of Press ◽  
The World

In the 1780s in America, the advocates of broad understandings of freedom of press and freedom of speech continued to argue, as “Junius Wilkes” did in 1782, that “[i]f a printer is liable to prosecution and restraint, for publishing pieces on public measures, conceived libellous, the liberty of the press is annihilated and ruined. . . . The danger is precisely the same to liberty, in punishing a person after the performance appears to the world, as in preventing its publication in the first instance. The doctrine of libels, is of pernicious consequence to the freedom of the press.” Many other essays in the 1780s showed the dominance of an expansive understanding of freedoms of press and speech, as did the declarations of rights of nine states. That was the context in which the First Amendment was adopted and ratified in 1789–1791. These conclusions about the prevalent and dominant understanding after the mid-1760s are flatly contrary to the narrow view of freedoms of press and speech stated by Blackstone and Mansfield, and restated by the neo-Blackstonians, who claim that the narrow understanding was not only predominant but exclusive through the ratification of the First Amendment and onward until 1798. This book’s conclusions are based on far more original source material than the neo-Blackstonians’ conclusions.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Wendell Bird
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Bill Of Rights ◽  
James Madison ◽  
Broad Definition ◽  
The Press ◽  
Narrow Definition ◽  
The Common ◽  
Definition Of

The “father of the Bill of Rights,” James Madison, described the unqualified words protecting freedoms of speech and press as embodying a broad definition rather than a narrow definition of those liberties. Upon offering those provisions, he said that “freedom of the press and rights of conscience . . . are unguarded in the British constitution,” including the common law, and that “every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights.” In Madison’s draft and in the final First Amendment, each clause was worded to modify or to reject the English common law on point in order to provide for far greater protection of individual liberties; no clause was worded with the restrictions that the common law imposed. Was Madison right? Are freedoms of press and speech in the First Amendment broad or narrow protections?

Information Is Power

2021 ◽  
pp. 230-245
Author(s):  
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Government Information ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Press ◽  
Security Information ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Government Secrecy ◽  
Right Of Access

Balancing the equally important but sometimes conflicting priorities of government transparency for public accountability versus government secrecy for national security seems intractable. One possibility is to recognize a constitutional right of access to government information. This would support democratic self-governance, allow the public to engage in meaningful oversight, and provide access to necessary information without the game of leaks. It could radically refocus arguments regarding the rights of government employees to reveal national security information and of third parties to publish it. Recognizing this right faces an uphill battle against decades of First Amendment jurisprudence. It also faces innumerable logistical and practical obstacles. It would not eliminate the need to determine when the public, the press, and government insiders can disclose national security information. Nevertheless, the ongoing collapse of press access norms and government’s increasing desire to operate outside public view may warrant dramatically rethinking First Amendment scope and protections.

Chapter 21

2020 ◽  
pp. 280-294
Author(s):  
Mark Glancy
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
Place Making ◽  
Charlie Chaplin ◽  
The Press ◽  
Cross Country ◽  
Radio Contact

In 1946, Howard Hughes nearly killed himself testing a new aircraft over Beverly Hills, and he spent weeks in the hospital before convalescing at Grant’s home. In 1947, when Hughes had recovered, he and Grant went on a cross country flight and their plane fell out of radio contact, leading the press to report that they were missing and presumed dead. On his return to Hollywood, Grant was unhappy making The Bishop’s Wife (1947), and he wanted to trade roles with his co-star David Niven, but producer Samuel Goldwyn refused his requests. While Grant hoped to make films in Britain with Alexander Korda, the plans eventually fizzled out. Nevertheless, he enjoyed a trip to London and Bristol, where he visited his mother again. On the voyage home, he met his future wife, the young actress Betsy Drake. The comedy Mr Blandings Builds His Dream House (1948), was made at a time when the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was investigating communist subversion in Hollywood. Grant’s co-stars, Myrna Loy and Melvyn Douglas, were committed to resisting the investigation and promoting First Amendment rights. Grant, however, was reluctant to take a stand, believing that actors had no place making political pronouncements. It was only when Charlie Chaplin was attacked a few years later that Grant finally spoke out against the investigations.

Exporting the First Amendment: The Press-Government Crusade of 1945-1952

1987 ◽  
Vol 92 (5) ◽  
pp. 1299
Author(s):  
Edwin R. Bayley ◽  
Margaret A. Blanchard
Keyword(s):  
First Amendment ◽  
The Press

Freedom of the Press

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sam Lebovic
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Press Freedom ◽  
Freedom Of The Press ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
The Press ◽  
History Of ◽  
Constitutional Right

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, Congress is barred from abridging the freedom of the press (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”). In practice, the history of press freedom is far more complicated than this simple constitutional right suggests. Over time, the meaning of the First Amendment has changed greatly. The Supreme Court largely ignored the First Amendment until the 20th century, leaving the scope of press freedom to state courts and legislatures. Since World War I, jurisprudence has greatly expanded the types of publication protected from government interference. The press now has broad rights to publish criticism of public officials, salacious material, private information, national security secrets, and much else. To understand the shifting history of press freedom, however, it is important to understand not only the expansion of formal constitutional rights but also how those rights have been shaped by such factors as economic transformations in the newspaper industry, the evolution of professional standards in the press, and the broader political and cultural relations between politicians and the press.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document