Democracy, individual rights and the regulation of science

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 407-429

  Weinstein, J ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

First Amendment; Freedom of speech; Freedom of thought and inquiry; Judicial scrutiny; Scientific research; Scientific speech; Substantive due process

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOETHICS; FREEDOM; GOVERNMENT; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN; HUMAN RIGHTS; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLITICAL SYSTEM; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

BIOETHICAL ISSUES; COMMUNICATION; CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS; DEMOCRACY; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; FREEDOM; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HUMAN RIGHTS; HUMANS; RESEARCH; UNITED STATES;

EID: 70349975655     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 16605454     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-009-9145-2     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Alberts, B. (2005). Modeling attacks on the food supply. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 102(28), 9737-9738 (Editorial).
2. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991).
3. Bernstein v. Dep't of Commerce, WL 838163 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2004).
4. Bernstein v. United States Department of Justice, 176 F.3d 1132, 1135 (9th Cir. 1999a), withdrawn, rehearing granted en banc, 192 F.3d 1308 (9th Cir. 1999b).
5. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
6. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
7. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
8. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
9. Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
10. City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000).
11. DVD Copy Control Ass'n v. Bunner, 75 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2003).
12. Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
13. Dworkin, R. (1996). Freedom's law: A moral reading of the American Constitution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).
15. Globe Newspapers v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982).
16. Hernstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: Free Press.
17. Himma, K. E. (2009). Philosophy of law, The Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Accessed May 21, 2009, from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/law-phil.htm#SSH2a.i.
18. Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978).
19. Irwin, D. R. (2005). Freedom of thought: The first amendment and scientific method. Wisconsin Law Review,2005, 1479-1533.
20. Junger v. Daley, 209 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2000).
21. Kass, L. R. (2009). Forbidding science: some beginning reflections. Science and Engineering Ethics (this issue).
22. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
23. MacArthur, A. P. (2007). The NSA phone call database: The problematic acquisition and mining of call records in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law,17, 441-481.
24. McDonald, B. P. (2005). Government regulation or other "abridgments" of scientific research: The proper scope of judicial review under the first amendment. Emory Law Journal,54, 989-1091.
25. Mostow, P. (1994). Like building on top of Auschwitz: On the symbolic meaning of using data from the Nazi experiments, and on Non-Use as a Form of Memorial. Journal of Law and Religion,10, 403-431.
26. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982).
27. National Commission on Egg Nutrition v. FTC., 570 F.2d 157 (7th Cir. 1977).
28. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973).
29. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
30. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. v. United States, 529 U.S. 803 (2000).
31. Post, R. C. (1988). The constitutional concept of public discourse: Outrageous opinion, democratic deliberation, and hustler magazine. Harvard Law Review,103, 603-686.
32. Post, R. C. (1995). Recuperating first amendment doctrine. Stanford Law Review,47, 1249-1281.
33. Post, R. C. (2000). Encryption source code and the first amendment. Berkeley Technology Law Journal,15, 629-723.
34. Redish, M. H. (1982). The value of free speech. University of Pennsylvania Law Review,130, 591-645.
35. Robertson, J. A. (1977). The scientist's right to research: A constitutional analysis. Southern California Law Review,51, 1203-1279.
36. Scanlon, T. M. (1972). A theory of freedom of expression. Philosophy and Public Affairs,1(2), 204-226.
37. Schneider v. Smith, 390 U.S. 17 (1968).
38. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974).
39. Sullivan, K. M., & Gunther, G. (2007). Constitutional law (16th ed.). New York: Foundation Press.
40. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
41. United States v. Progressive, Inc., 467 F. Supp. 990 (E.D. Wis. 1979).
42. United States v. Wenger, 427 F.3d 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
43. Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F. 3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
44. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
45. Volokh, E. (2005). Crime-facilitating speech. Stanford Law Review,57, 1095-1222.
46. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997).
47. Wein, L. M., & Liu, Y. (2005). Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: The case of botulinum toxin in milk. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science,102(28), 9984-9989.
48. Weinstein, J. (1999). Hate speech. Boulder: Westview Press, Pornography and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine.
49. Weinstein, J. (2004). Speech categorization and the limits of first amendment formalism: Lessons from Nike v. Kasky. Case Western Reserve Law Review,54, 1091-1142.
50. Weinstein, J. (2007). Institutional review boards and the constitution. Northwestern Law Review,101, 493-561.
51. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
52. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).
53. Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965).