The supreme court defines the marketplace of ideas

Journalism and Mass Communication Quaterly

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 40-52

  Hopkins, W Wat ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005358044     PISSN: 10776990     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/107769909607300105     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (NY: Oxford, 1989), 7. See also Barbara Sweeney, "The Marketplace of Ideas: An Economic Analogy for Freedom of Speech" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Gainesville, FL, 1984). The author is indebted to Professor Sweeney's paper, which provided the impetus for this study.
2. C. Edwin Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (NY: Oxford, 1989), 7. See also Barbara Sweeney, "The Marketplace of Ideas: An Economic Analogy for Freedom of Speech" (paper presented at the annual meeting of AEJMC, Gainesville, FL, 1984). The author is indebted to Professor Sweeney's paper, which provided the impetus for this study.
3. In addition to those scholars cited in notes 46-55, see, for example, Vincent Blasi, "The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory," American Bar Foundation Research Journal (summer 1977): 550; and Martin Redish, "The Value of Free Speech," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130 (January 1982): 593-94.
4. In addition to those scholars cited in notes 46-55, see, for example, Vincent Blasi, "The Checking Value in First Amendment Theory," American Bar Foundation Research Journal (summer 1977): 550; and Martin Redish, "The Value of Free Speech," University of Pennsylvania Law Review 130 (January 1982): 593-94.
5. See Christopher T. Wonnell, "Truth and the Marketplace of Ideas," University of California at Davis Law Review 19 (spring 1986): 669-76, for a discussion of the criticisms of the marketplace of ideas metaphor.
6. A WESTLAW search was made for every free expression case containing references to the marketplace of ideas. In addition, cases cited in the retrieved cases were examined for references to the metaphor. Implied references were used only when they referred specifically to a competition or battle of ideas or to the discovery of truth, rather than to an exchange of ideas.
7. 250 US 616 (1919).
8. Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47, 52 (1919).
9. Abrams at 630 (Holmes, J., dissenting).
10. See note 4 for a description of the methodology used in selecting these cases.
11. The appointment dates and record of writing in free expression cases of the three most recent justices follow: Clarence Thomas (1991), majority opinion in Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S.Ct. 1585 (1995); opinion concurring in the judgment in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1525 (1995); concurring opinion in Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 115 S.Ct. 2440 (1995). Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993), plurality opinion in Ibanez v. Florida, 114 S.Ct. 2084 (1994); concurring opinion in McIntyre at 1524; dissenting opinion in Capitol Square, 115 S.Ct. at 2451; and an opinion concurring and dissenting in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994); Stephen Breyer (1994), no opinions.
12. The appointment dates and record of writing in free expression cases of the three most recent justices follow: Clarence Thomas (1991), majority opinion in Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S.Ct. 1585 (1995); opinion concurring in the judgment in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1525 (1995); concurring opinion in Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 115 S.Ct. 2440 (1995). Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993), plurality opinion in Ibanez v. Florida, 114 S.Ct. 2084 (1994); concurring opinion in McIntyre at 1524; dissenting opinion in Capitol Square, 115 S.Ct. at 2451; and an opinion concurring and dissenting in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994); Stephen Breyer (1994), no opinions.
13. The appointment dates and record of writing in free expression cases of the three most recent justices follow: Clarence Thomas (1991), majority opinion in Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 115 S.Ct. 1585 (1995); opinion concurring in the judgment in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 1525 (1995); concurring opinion in Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette, 115 S.Ct. 2440 (1995). Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993), plurality opinion in Ibanez v. Florida, 114 S.Ct. 2084 (1994); concurring opinion in McIntyre at 1524; dissenting opinion in Capitol Square, 115 S.Ct. at 2451; and an opinion concurring and dissenting in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC, 114 S.Ct. 2445 (1994); Stephen Breyer (1994), no opinions.
14. See, e.g., Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 US 809, 826 (1975).
15. See, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323, 339-40 (1974).
16. See, e.g., Time v. Hill, 385 US 374, 388 (1967); and 385 US at 406, 407 (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting).
17. See, e.g., Miller v. California, 413 US 15, 36 (1973).
18. See, e.g., Houchins v. KQED, 438 US 1, 32 (1978)(Stevens, J., dissenting), and Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 US 843, 862 (1974)(Powell, J., dissenting).
19. See, e.g., Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 US 748, 760 (1976).
20. See, e.g., Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 US 88, 104-05 (1940).
21. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson, 491 US 397, 418 (1989).
22. See, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 US 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 US 726 (1978); and CBS Inc. v. FCC, 454 US 367 (1981).
23. See, e.g., Leathers v. Medlock, 111 S.Ct. 1438, 1444 (1991).
24. See, e.g., Citizens Against Rent Control v. Berkeley, 454 US 290, 295 (1981)(campaign contributions); Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association, 486 US 466, 483 (1988)(O'Connor, J., dissenting)(attorney solicitations); Simon & Schuster v. New York Crime Victims Board, 112 S.Ct. 501, 512 (1991)(Son-of-Sam laws); and Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 US 62, 92 (1990)(Stevens, J., concurring)(political patronage jobs).
25. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 US 265, 312 (1978).
26. Craig v. Boren, 429 US 190, 198-99 (1976); and J.E.B. v. Alabama, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 1425 (1994).
27. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 US 1,35 (1973).
28. Some of the cases in which the Court used the marketplace of ideas as part of its rationale are cited in footnotes 11, 16, 28, 34, 37, 58, 81, 83, and 84.
29. Some of the cases in which the Court used the marketplace of ideas as hyperbole, but not rationale, in majority or plurality opinions are cited in footnotes 10, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21-23, 31, 82, 86, and 87.
30. See, e.g., Red Lion Broadcasting at 390; Buckley v. Valeo, 424 US 1, 14 (1976); Citizens at 295; CBS v. FCC at 395; FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 US 364, 377-78 (1984); and Young v. American Mini Theatres, 427 US 50, 60 (1976).
31. Williams v. Rhodes, 393 US 23, 32 (1968); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 US 780, 802 (1983); and Elrod v. Burns, 427 US 347, 357 (1976).
32. Associated Press v. United States, 326 US 1, 20 (1945).
33. Adderley v. Florida, 385 US 39, 49 (1966)(Douglas, J., dissenting). See also Buckley at 14, and Williams at 32.
34. See, e.g., Turner Broadcasting, 1808, citing Red Lion Broadcasting at 390.
35. See, e.g., RAV v. St. Paul, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 2545 (1992).
36. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson at 418; and Konigsberg v. State Bar of California, 366 US 36, 63 (1961)(Black, J., dissenting).
37. FCC v. Pacifica at 745-56; cited in Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 US 46, 55-56 (1988).
38. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission, 447 US 530, 537-38 (1980).
39. See, e.g., City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 US 789, 803 (1984); Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association, 460 US 37, 71-72 (1983)(Brennan, J., dissenting); and Simon & Schuster at 512.
40. See, e.g., Leathers at 1444; and Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 US 652, 670 (1990)(Brennan, J., concurring).
41. FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 US 238, 256-57 (1986).
42. Taxpayers for Vincent at 804.
43. Thomas v. Collins, 323 US 516, 537 (1945); Milkovich v. Lorain Journal, 497 US 1, 18 (1990); Consolidated Edison at 534; FEC at 257; Hustler at 51; and Red Lion at 390.
44. Abrams at 630 (Holmes, J., dissenting); quoted at note 7.
45. The papers of Black, Brennan, Douglas, Marshall, and Warren are available in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress. Access to the Douglas, Marshall, and Warren papers is unrestricted. Access to the Black Papers is by permission of the justice's son; access to the Brennan Papers is by permission of the justice. The Harlan Papers are in the Seeley G. Mudd Manuscript Library of Princeton University. Access by scholars is unrestricted.
46. 413 US 15 (1973).
47. Chief Justice Warren Burger, Memorandum to William J. Brennan, 14 June 1972, William J. Brennan Jr. Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Box 283.
48. Chief Justice Warren Burger, Memorandum to the Conference, 31 Oct. 1972, William J. Brennan Jr. Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, Box 283.
49. See, for example, Alexander Meiklejohn, Political Freedom (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1979), 26-28; and Alexander Meiklejohn, "The First Amendment is an Absolute," Supreme Court Review (1961): 252, 256-57. See also, Zechariah Chafee Jr., "Freedom of Speech in Wartime," Harvard Law Review 32 (June 1919): 958.
50. See, for example, Alexander Meiklejohn, Political Freedom (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1979), 26-28; and Alexander Meiklejohn, "The First Amendment is an Absolute," Supreme Court Review (1961): 252, 256-57. See also, Zechariah Chafee Jr., "Freedom of Speech in Wartime," Harvard Law Review 32 (June 1919): 958.
51. See, for example, Alexander Meiklejohn, Political Freedom (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1979), 26-28; and Alexander Meiklejohn, "The First Amendment is an Absolute," Supreme Court Review (1961): 252, 256-57. See also, Zechariah Chafee Jr., "Freedom of Speech in Wartime," Harvard Law Review 32 (June 1919): 958.
52. Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, 12.
53. Jerome A. Barron, "Access to the Press - A New First Amendment Right," Harvard Law Review 80 (May 1967): 1641. See also Jerome A. Barron, Freedom of the Press for Whom? (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973).
54. Jerome A. Barron, "Access to the Press - A New First Amendment Right," Harvard Law Review 80 (May 1967): 1641. See also Jerome A. Barron, Freedom of the Press for Whom? (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973).
55. Barron, "Access to the Press," 1641.
56. Barron, "Access to the Press," 1648.
57. Barron, "Access to the Press," 1654.
58. Barron, "Access to the Press," 1670.
59. Stanley Ingber, "The Marketplace of Ideas: A Legitimizing Myth," Duke Law Journal (February 1984): 15.
60. Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, 19.
61. Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, 20.
62. See Frederick Schauer, "The Role of the People in First Amendment Theory," California Law Review 74 (1978): 528.
63. Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech, 15.
64. Ingber, "The Marketplace of Ideas," 15.
65. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 US 241, 248 (1974).
66. Miami Herald Publishing Co. at 51.
67. 412 US 94, 130-31 (1973).
68. Columbia Broadcasting System at 132.
69. Columbia Broadcasting System at 172 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
70. Columbia Broadcasting System at 184 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
71. Columbia Broadcasting System at 199 (Brennan, J., dissenting), quoting Red Lion Broadcasting at 387.
72. Columbia Broadcasting System at 199 (Brennan, J., dissenting). This was Brennan's second such reference. Earlier in the opinion he noted that the government helped the broadcast industry in becoming "what is potentially the most efficient and effective 'marketplace of ideas' ever devised," at 195.
73. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 US 557, 591 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
74. Central Hudson at 592 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
75. Central Hudson at 592-93 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
76. Central Hudson at 592 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
77. Central Hudson at 597 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
78. Central Hudson at 598 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
79. Taxpayers for Vincent at 804. See also Perry Education Association, 460 US at 71-72 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
80. See, e.g., Austin at 650-60; and FEC at 257.
81. A marketplace of ideas has some similarities to a public forum, but the two are different. See, e.g., discussion of public fora in Madison School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 429 US 167, 175-76 (1976), and 178-79 (Brennan, J., concurring).
82. 436 US 775, 790 (1978).
83. FCC at 785.
84. FCC at 787.
85. Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, 465 US 271, 283 (1984).
86. Minnesota Board at 296 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
87. Minnesota Board at 298 (Brennan, J., dissenting). See also, Minnesota Board at 314 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
88. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 US 589, 603 (1967).
89. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 US 263, 267 (1981).
90. Healy v. James, 408 US 169, 180-81 (1972).
91. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 US 503, 512 (1969).
92. New Rider, et. al. v. Board of Education of Independent School District No. 1, 414 US 1097, 1100 (1973)(Douglas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), rehearing denied, 415 US 939 (1974).
93. Board of Education, Island Trees v. Pico, 457 US 853 (1982).
94. Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 US 753, 784 (1972) (Marshall, J., dissenting).
95. Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robbins, 447 US 74 (1980).
96. Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, 452 US 640, 658 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting).
97. See, e.g., Lamont v. Postmaster General, 381 US 301 (1965); and Perry Education Association.
98. Bridges v. California, 314 US 252, 283 (1941)(Frankfurter, J., dissenting); and Ollman v. Evans, 471 US 1127, 1129 (1985)(Rehnquist, J., dissent from denial of certiorari).
99. Pruneyard at 97 (Powell, J., concurring in part and in the judgment).