Participatory democracy and free speech

Virginia Law Review

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 477-490

  Post, Robert ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79961239572     PISSN: 00426601     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 581 (1995).
2. Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliot, 521 U.S. 457, 478 (1997) (Souter, J., dissenting).
3. In this regard, see the distinction of Professor Fred Schauer between the "coverage" and the "protection" of the First Amendment. Frederick Schauer, Categories and the First Amendment: A Play in Three Acts, 34 Vand. L. Rev. 265, 267-70 (1981).
4. See Robert Post, Recuperating First Amendment Doctrine, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 1249, 1255-56 (1995).
5. Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 51 (1988).
6. Alexander Meiklejohn, Political Freedom: The Constitutional Powers of the People 27 (1948).
7. Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 882 (1990).
8. This case, Bailey v. Huggins Diagnostic & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., 952 P.2d 768 (Colo. App. 1997)
9. is discussed in Robert Post, Informed Consent to Abortion: A First Amendment Analysis of Compelled Physician Speech, 2007 U. Ill. L. Rev. 939, 947 n.38.
10. Robert Post, Democracy and Equality, 603 Annals Am. Acad. Pol. & Soc. Sci. 24, 25 (2006)
11. Robert Post, Equality and Autonomy in First Amendment Jurisprudence, 95 Mich. L. Rev. 1517, 1524 (1997) (book review).
12. Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy app. I, at 472-77, 486-90 (William Rehg trans., Polity Press 1996) (1992).
13. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 263 n.18 (1952).
14. For a full account, see Robert C. Post, Between Democracy and Community: The Legal Constitution of Social Form, in Democratic Community: NOMOS XXXV 163, 181 (John W. Chapman & Ian Shapiro eds., 1993)
15. Robert C. Post, The Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 601, 684 (1990)
16. Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Defamation Law: Reputation and the Constitution, 74 Cal. L. Rev. 691, 733-37 (1986)
17. Robert C. Post, The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort, 77 Cal. L. Rev. 957, 995-97 (1989).
18. Robert Post, Compelled Subsidization of Speech: Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 2005 Sup. Ct. Rev. 195, 213-16.
19. Robert C. Post, Between Governance and Management: The History and Theory of the Public Forum, 34 UCLA L. Rev. 1713, 1807 (1987).
20. Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind. L.J. 1, 20-26, 30-35 (1971).
21. See Robert Post, The Constitutional Status of Commercial Speech, 48 UCLA L. Rev. 1, 28 (2000)
22. The Court has had a great deal of difficulty maintaining the consistency of this conceptual structure. See Robert C. Post, Subsidized Speech, 106 Yale L.J. 151, 152 (1996). Professor C. Edwin Baker proposes that this conceptual structure be extended to all media, at least to all media with corporate form.
23. See C. Edwin Baker, The Independent Significance of the Press Clause Under Existing Law, 35 Hofstra L. Rev. 955, 985-1013 (2007). I do not see any conceptual objection to this proposal, with the conspicuous exception that it is radically inconsistent with the historical treatment extended to corporate entities outside the broadcast media.
24. Robert Post, Reconciling Theory and Doctrine in First Amendment Jurisprudence, 88 Cal. L. Rev. 2353, 2373 (2000).