Electoral Exceptionalism and the First Amendment

Texas Law Review

Volumn 77, Issue 7, 1999, Pages

  Schauer, Frederick ^a   Pildes, Richard H ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0345884670     PISSN: 00404411     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. 118 S. Ct. 1633 (1998).
2. See id. at 1642-43 (holding that the debate in Arkansas Educational Television Commission was a nonpublic forum rather than a designated public forum).
3. To oversimplify, the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to prefer one viewpoint to the exclusion of any other. See Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (holding that the choice of material printed in a newspaper, whether fair or not, cannot be controlled by the state without violating the First Amendment). The normal rule for state enterprises, however, is that they may not discriminate among speakers on the basis of viewpoint. See, e.g., National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 118 S. Ct. 2168, 2171 (1998) (recognizing that the application of a law "in a manner that raises concern about the suppression of disfavored viewpoints" would be struck down); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995) ("In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulations may not favor one speaker over another"). See generally Susan H. Williams, Content Discrimination and the First Amendment, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 615, 620 (1991) (discussing different forms of content discrimination occurring when a regulation affects the marketplace of ideas).
4. To oversimplify, the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to prefer one viewpoint to the exclusion of any other. See Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (holding that the choice of material printed in a newspaper, whether fair or not, cannot be controlled by the state without violating the First Amendment). The normal rule for state enterprises, however, is that they may not discriminate among speakers on the basis of viewpoint. See, e.g., National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 118 S. Ct. 2168, 2171 (1998) (recognizing that the application of a law "in a manner that raises concern about the suppression of disfavored viewpoints" would be struck down); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995) ("In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulations may not favor one speaker over another"). See generally Susan H. Williams, Content Discrimination and the First Amendment, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 615, 620 (1991) (discussing different forms of content discrimination occurring when a regulation affects the marketplace of ideas).
5. To oversimplify, the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to prefer one viewpoint to the exclusion of any other. See Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (holding that the choice of material printed in a newspaper, whether fair or not, cannot be controlled by the state without violating the First Amendment). The normal rule for state enterprises, however, is that they may not discriminate among speakers on the basis of viewpoint. See, e.g., National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 118 S. Ct. 2168, 2171 (1998) (recognizing that the application of a law "in a manner that raises concern about the suppression of disfavored viewpoints" would be struck down); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995) ("In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulations may not favor one speaker over another"). See generally Susan H. Williams, Content Discrimination and the First Amendment, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 615, 620 (1991) (discussing different forms of content discrimination occurring when a regulation affects the marketplace of ideas).
6. To oversimplify, the First Amendment protects the right of journalists to prefer one viewpoint to the exclusion of any other. See Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974) (holding that the choice of material printed in a newspaper, whether fair or not, cannot be controlled by the state without violating the First Amendment). The normal rule for state enterprises, however, is that they may not discriminate among speakers on the basis of viewpoint. See, e.g., National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, 118 S. Ct. 2168, 2171 (1998) (recognizing that the application of a law "in a manner that raises concern about the suppression of disfavored viewpoints" would be struck down); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828 (1995) ("In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulations may not favor one speaker over another"). See generally Susan H. Williams, Content Discrimination and the First Amendment, 139 U. PA. L. REV. 615, 620 (1991) (discussing different forms of content discrimination occurring when a regulation affects the marketplace of ideas).