First amendment architecture

Wisconsin Law Review

Volumn 2012, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-83

  Ammori, Marvin ^a  

^a STANFORD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859801066     PISSN: 0043650X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (401)

1. Marvin Ammori, SF BART: Silencing Phones, Stifling Protests, Violating Freedom of Speech?, BALKINIZATION (Aug. 12, 2011, 7:08 PM), http://balkin. blogspot.com/2011/08/sf-bart-silencing-phones-stifling.html.
2. Robert L. Hale, Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State, 38 POL. SCI. Q. 470, 470-78 (1923).
3. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2731 (2010);.
4. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 385-86 (1968);.
5. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 516-17 (1951);.
6. Debs v. United States, 249 U.S. 211, 214-15 (1919);.
7. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52-53 (1919);.
8. GEOFFREY R. STONE, PERILOUS TIMES: FREE SPEECH IN WARTIME: FROM THE SEDITION ACT OF 1798 TO THE WAR ON TERRORISM passim (2004);.
9. LAURENCE H. TRIBE, CONSTITUTIONAL CHOICES 190-92 (1985).
10. ISAIAH BERLIN, Two Concepts of Liberty, in FOUR ESSAYS ON LIBERTY 118 (1969);.
11. BENJAMIN CONSTANT, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Moderns, in POLITICAL WRITINGS 309, 316 (Biancamaria Fontana ed. & trans., 1988);.
12. Gerald C. MacCallum, Jr., Negative and Positive Freedom, 76 PHIL. REV. 312 passim (1967).
13. Cf. Susan Bandes, The Negative Constitution: A Critique, 88 MICH. L. REV. 2271, 2344-45 (1990).
14. JOHN D. INAZU, LIBERTY'S REFUGE: THE FORGOTTEN FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY passim (2012);.
15. TIMOTHY ZICK, SPEECH OUT OF DOORS: PRESERVING FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERTIES IN PUBLIC PLACES passim (2009).
16. Thomas P. Crocker, Displacing Dissent: The Role of "Place" in First Amendment Jurisprudence, 75 FORDHAM L. REV. 2587, 2588-89 (2007).
17. Stephanie Condon, Koch-backed Group, Tea Party Mobilize in Wisconsin, CBS NEWS (Feb. 23, 2011, 11:15 AM), http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544-162- 20035345-503544.html;About, OCCUPYWALLSTREET, http://occupywallst.org/about/ (lastvisitedFebruary8, 2012).
18. J. M. Balkin, Some Realism about Pluralism: Legal Realist Approaches to the First Amendment, 1990 DUKE L.J. 375, 412.
19. Mark A. Lemley, Place and Cyberspace, 91 CALIF. L. REV. 521, 521-23 (2003).
20. John Schwartz, Shouting Porn! on a Crowded Net; At the Supreme Court, Nine Justices in Search of a Metaphor, WASH. POST, Mar. 30, 1997, at C01.
21. PAUL STARR, THE CREATION OF THE MEDIA: POLITICAL ORIGINS OF MODERN COMMUNICATIONS 1-2 (2004).
22. FCC, CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN (2010), available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/(offeringaplantoextenddigitalspacestoall.
23. Preserving the Open Internet, 25 FCC Rcd. 17, 905, 17, 984-91 (2010).
24. Al Franken, Net Neutrality Is Foremost Free Speech Issue of Our Time, CNN (Aug. 5, 2010), http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-05/opinion/franken.net. neutrality-1-net-neutrality-television-networks-cable?-s=PM:OPINION.
25. Dawn C. Nunziato, The First Amendment Issue of Our Time, 29 YALE L. & POL'Y REV. INTER ALIA, Dec. 17, 2010, http://yalelawandpolicy.org/29/the-first- amendmentissue-of-our-time.
26. Al Franken & Ron Wyden, U.S. Senators, to Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Comm'n (Mar. 9, 2011), available at http://wyden.senate.gov/download/?id=b053a5d5-afe5-4a48-b9a3-519193006a60.
27. Nicholas Thompson, Obama vs. McCain: The Wired.com Scorecard, WIRED.COM (Oct. 12, 2008, 7:15 PM), http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/10/obama-v-mccain/ .
28. Two Million Strong for Net Neutrality, SAVE THE INTERNET, http://act2.freepress.net/letter/two-million/(last visited Feb. 8, 2012).
29. Cable, Phone, Net Companies Have Spent $110 Million This Year to Influence Telecom Reform. Was It Worth It?, MULTICHANNEL NEWS, Oct. 23, 2006, at 14.
30. Marvin Ammori, Controversial Copyright Bills Would Violate First Amendment-Letters to Congress by Laurence Tribe and Me, BALKINIZATION (Dec. 8, 2011, 1:36 PM), http://balkin.blogspot.com/2011/12/controversial-copyright- bills-would.html.
31. Laurence H. Tribe & Thomas C. Goldstein, Proposed "Net Neutrality" Mandates Could Be Counterproductive and Violate the First Amendment 2-4, Exhibit A to Comments of Time Warner Cable, Inc., GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52 (FCC), Oct. 19, 2009, available at http://freestatefoundation.org/images/TWC-Net-Neutrality-Violates-the-First- Amendment-Tribe-Goldstein.pdf.
32. Adam Liptak, Verizon Rejects Text Messages from an Abortion Rights Group, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 27, 2007, at A1.
33. Comments of Verizon Wireless, In the matter of Petition of Public Knowledge, et al., WT Dkt No. 08-7, March 14, 2008, at 46-58 (FCC), available at http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native-or-pdf=pdf&id- document=6519866994.
34. DAVID M. RABBAN, FREE SPEECH IN ITS FORGOTTEN YEARS 7, 17 (1997)
35. John Hart Ely, Flag Desecration: A Case Study in the Roles of Categorization and Balancing in First Amendment Analysis, 88 HARV. L. REV. 1482 (1975);.
36. Elena Kagan, Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, 63 U. CHI. L. REV. 413 (1996). (Pubitemid 126408717)
37. Harry Kalven, Jr., The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 SUP. CT. REV. 1, 13;.
38. Frederick Schauer, The Boundaries of the First Amendment: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience, 117 HARV. L. REV. 1765 (2004);.
39. Geoffrey R. Stone, Content Regulation and the First Amendment, 25 WM. & MARY L. REV. 189 (1983);.
40. Ronald A. Cass, The Perils of Positive Thinking: Constitutional Interpretation and Negative First Amendment Theory, 34 UCLA L. REV. 1405, 1407 nn. 4-8 (1987).
41. Robert C. Post, Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment, 32 WM. & MARY L. REV. 267, 278 (1991).
42. Charles L. Barzun, Politics or Principle? Zechariah Chafee and the Social Interest in Free Speech, 2007 BYU L. REV. 259, 260 & n.5.
43. Mark Tushnet, Renormalizing Bush v. Gore: An Anticipatory Intellectual History, 90 GEO. L.J. 113, 114-16 (2001).
44. Marvin Ammori, Another Worthy Tradition: How the Free Speech Curriculum Ignores Electronic Media and Distorts Free Speech Doctrine, 70 MO. L. REV. 59, 97-122 (2005).
45. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 16 (1971);.
46. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
47. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
48. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
49. ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN, FREE SPEECH AND ITS RELATION TO SELF GOVERNMENT (1948);.
50. C. EDWIN BAKER, MEDIA, MARKETS, AND DEMOCRACY 129-53 (2002) [hereinafter BAKER, MARKETS] (discussing four categories of democratic theories);.
51. ROBERT A. DAHL, ON DEMOCRACY 37-43, 189-91, 196-99 (1998);.
52. DAVID HELD, MODELS OF DEMOCRACY passim (3d ed. 2006);.
53. Martin H. Redish & Abby Marie Mollen, Understanding Post's and Meiklejohn's Mistakes: The Central Role of Adversary Democracy in the Theory of Free Expression, 103 NW. U. L. REV. 1303, 1350-70 (2009).
54. YOCHAI BENKLER, THE WEALTH OF NETWORKS: HOW SOCIAL PRODUCTION TRANSFORMS MARKETS AND FREEDOM, 165, 176-211 (2006) [hereinafter BENKLER, WEALTH OF NETWORKS];.
55. THOMAS I. EMERSON, TOWARD A GENERAL THEORY OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (1966);.
56. Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Two Senses of Autonomy, 46 STAN. L. REV. 875, 876, 880-84 (1994) ("Autonomy, however, is a protean concept, which means different things to different people . . . .");.
57. Robert C. Post, Meiklejohn's Mistake: Individual Autonomy and the Reform of Public Discourse, 64 COLO. L. REV. 1109, 1111-19 (1993) (discussing the relation between autonomy and democracy);.
58. Lawrence Byard Solum, Freedom of Communicative Action: A Theory of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech, 83 NW. U. L. REV. 54, 68-86 (1989).
59. Yochai Benkler, Siren Songs and Amish Children: Autonomy, Information, and Law, 76 N.Y.U. L. REV. 23, 31-40 (2001) [hereinafter Benkler, Autonomy].
60. Lillian R. BeVier, Rehabilitating Public Forum Doctrine: In Defense of Categories, 1992 SUP. CT. REV. 79, 121-22 [hereinafter BeVier, Public Forum] (characterizing these "middle-level questions" as on "an analytical tier between broad theory and narrow doctrine");.
61. Heather K. Gerken, The Costs and Causes of Minimalism in Voting Cases: Baker v. Carr and Its Progeny, 80 N.C. L. REV. 1411, 1414 (2002).
62. Cass R. Sunstein, Commentary, Incompletely Theorized Agreements, 108 HARV. L. REV. 1733, 1735-36 (1995).
63. Cass R. Sunstein, Free Speech Now, 59 U. CHI. L. REV. 255, 259-61 (1992).
64. Lillian R. BeVier, The First Amendment on the Tracks: Should Justice Breyer Be at the Switch?, 89 MINN. L. REV. 1280, 1280 (2005).
65. Martin H. Redish & Kirk J. Kaludis, The Right of Expressive Access in First Amendment Theory: Redistributive Values and the Democratic Dilemma, 93 NW. U. L. REV. 1083, 1083-89 (1999);.
66. Geoffrey R. Stone, Autonomy and Distrust, 64 U. COLO. L. REV. 1171, 1171 (1993).
67. Geoffrey R. Stone, Imagining a Free Press, 90 MICH. L. REV. 1246, 1247 (1992);.
68. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Two Concepts of Freedom of Speech, 124 HARV. L. REV. 143, 155-63 (2010) [hereinafter Sullivan, Two Concepts];.
69. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Political Money and Freedom of Speech, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 663, 667 (1997) [hereinafter Sullivan, Political Money];.
70. John Fee, Speech Discrimination, 85 B.U. L. REV. 1103, 1120-22 (2005).
71. Ronald Dworkin, Liberty and Pornography, N.Y. REV. BOOKS, Aug. 15, 1991, at 12, available at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1991/aug15/liberty- and-pornography/(characterizing freedom of speech as a negative liberty).
72. Frederick Schauer, Hohfeld's First Amendment, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 914, 915 (2008) .
73. Frederick Schauer & Richard H. Pildes, Electoral Exceptionalism and the First Amendment, 77 TEX. L. REV. 1803, 1806-07 (1999).
74. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 513, 520-21 (1976).
75. PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980).
76. Lillian BeVier & John Harrison, The State Action Principle and Its Critics, 96 VA. L. REV. 1767, 1774-85 (2010).
77. These include campaign finance case Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), .
78. newspaper right-to-reply case Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), .
79. cable must-carry cases Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner I ), 512 U.S. 622 (1994).
80. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC (Turner II), 520 U.S. 180 (1997). I discuss most of these cases later in this Article. See infra notes 314-320, 414- 426, and accompanying text.
81. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77 (1968).
82. Calvin Massey, Public Fora, Neutral Governments, and the Prism of Property, 50 HASTINGS L.J. 309, 313 (1999).
83. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Constitutionalizing Women's Equality, 90 CALIF. L. REV. 735, 759 (2002).
84. Guy E. Carmi, Dignity-The Enemy from within: A Theoretical and Comparative Analysis of Human Dignity as a Free Speech Justification, 9 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 957, 995 (2007).
85. Alan Trammell, Note, The Cabining of Rosenberger: Locke v. Davey and the Broad Nondiscrimination Principle that Never Was, 92 VA. L. REV. 1957, 1962 (2006)
86. Matthew L. Spitzer, The Constitutionality of Licensing Broadcasters, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 990, 993 (1989).
87. Rebecca Tushnet, Copyright as a Model for Free Speech Law: What Copyright Has in Common with Anti-Pornography Laws, Campaign Finance Reform, and Telecommunications Regulation, 42 B.C. L. REV. 1, 35 (2000);.
88. William W. Van Alstyne, The Möbius Strip of the First Amendment: Perspectives on Red Lion, 29 S.C. L. REV. 539, 574-75 (1978);.
89. Christopher S. Yoo, Architectural Censorship and the FCC, 78 S. CAL. L. REV. 669, 713 (2005) [hereinafter Yoo, Architectural];.
90. Christopher S. Yoo, The Rise and Demise of the Technology-Specific Approach to the First Amendment, 91 GEO. L.J. 245, 263 (2003) [hereinafter Yoo, Rise].
91. Lee C. Bollinger, Jr., Freedom of the Press & Public Access: Toward a Theory of Partial Regulation of the Mass Media, 75 MICH. L. REV. 1, 1-10, 17-26 (1976).
92. C. Edwin Baker, Turner Broadcasting: Content-Based Regulation of Persons and Presses, 1994 SUP. CT. REV. 57, 99-105.
93. ITHIEL DE SOLA POOL, TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEDOM 2 (1983).
94. Stuart Minor Benjamin, Transmitting, Editing, and Communicating: Determining What "The Freedom of Speech" Encompasses, 60 DUKE L.J. 1673, 1686 (2011).
95. Daryl J. Levinson, Framing Transactions in Constitutional Law, 111 YALE L.J. 1311, 1363 (2002).
96. C. EDWIN BAKER, MEDIA CONCENTRATION AND DEMOCRACY: WHY OWNERSHIP MATTERS 124-62 (2007) [hereinafter BAKER, OWNERSHIP];.
97. ZECHARIAH CHAFEE, JR., GOVERNMENT AND MASS COMMUNICATIONS (1947);.
98. OWEN FISS, LIBERALISM DIVIDED: FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THE MANY USES OF STATE POWER 142-58 (1996);.
99. CASS R. SUNSTEIN, DEMOCRACY AND THE PROBLEM OF FREE SPEECH 53-92 (1993);.
100. Jack M. Balkin, Media Access: A Question of Design, 76 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 933, 949 (2008);.
101. Jerome A. Barron, Access to the Press-A New First Amendment Right, 80 HARV. L. REV. 1641, 1653-56 (1967);.
102. Yochai Benkler, Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain, 74 N.Y.U. L. REV. 354, 359, 364-86 (1999);.
103. Donald W. Hawthorne & Monroe E. Price, Rewiring the First Amendment: Meaning, Content and Public Broadcasting, 12 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 499, 504-10 (1994);.
104. Gregory P. Magarian, The Jurisprudence of Colliding First Amendment Interests: From the Dead End of Neutrality to the Open Road of Participation-Enhancing Review, 83 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 185, 246-49 (2007);.
105. Michael J. Burstein, Note, Towards a New Standard for First Amendment Review of Structural Media Regulation, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1030, 1032 n.10, 1054 (2004);.
106. Stephen Breyer, Madison Lecture: Our Democratic Constitution, 77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 245, 253 (2002);.
107. Thomas I. Emerson, The Affirmative Side of the First Amendment, 15 GA. L. REV. 795 passim (1981);.
108. Mark Tushnet, Weak-Form Judicial Review and "Core" Civil Liberties, 41 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 1, 2 (2006).
109. Eugene Volokh, The Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope, 116 HARV. L. REV. 1026, 1078-82 (2003) (discussing the "is-ought" fallacy and an "is-ought" heuristic).
110. David Hume observed the is-ought problem in "every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with." DAVID HUME, A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE 469 (L.A. Selby-Bigge ed., Oxford Univ. Press 2d ed. 1978) (1739);.
111. Cf. Richard A. Posner, The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication, 8 HOFSTRA L. REV. 487, 491-97 (1980);.
112. David A. Strauss, Freedom of Speech and the Common- Law Constitution, in ETERNALLY VIGILANT: FREE SPEECH IN THE MODERN ERA 32, 32-35(Lee C. Bollinger & Geoffrey R. Stone eds., 2002).
113. RICHARD A. POSNER, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF LAW 249-53 (7th ed. 2007);.
114. John C. Goodman, An Economic Theory of the Evolution of the Common Law, 7 J. LEGAL STUD. 393 (1978);.
115. George L. Priest, The Common Law Process and the Selection of Efficient Rules, 6 J. LEGAL STUD. 65 (1977).
116. Lawrence Lessig, The New Chicago School, 27 J. LEGAL STUD. 661, 662-65 (1998) [hereinafter Lessig, New Chicago].
117. Neal Kumar Katyal, Architecture as Crime Control, 111 YALE L.J. 1039, 1056-57 (2002).
118. Cf. Samuel L. Bray, Power Rules, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1172, 1172 (2010).
119. ROBERT C. POST, CONSTITUTIONAL DOMAINS: DEMOCRACY, COMMUNITY, MANAGEMENT 199 (1995).
120. Timothy Zick, Space, Place, and Speech: The Expressive Topography, 74 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 439, 457 & nn. 112, 115 (2006).
121. Marc Jonathan Blitz, Video Surveillance and the Constitution of Public Space: Fitting the Fourth Amendment to a World that Tracks Image and Identity, 82 TEX. L. REV. 1349, 1370 (2004).
122. Daniel J. Solove, Identity Theft, Privacy, and the Architecture of Vulnerability, 54 HASTINGS L.J. 1227, 1241 (2003).
123. Ipsos OTX Study: People Spend More Than Half Their Day Consuming Media, WRAP (Sept. 20, 2010, 6:54 PM), http://www.thewrap.com/media/column-post/people- spend-more-12-day-consuming-mediastudy-finds-21005.
124. William E. Lee, Cable Modem Service and the First Amendment: Adventures in a "Doctrinal Wasteland, " 16 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 125, 128, 154-55 (2002);.
125. Randolph J. May, Net Neutrality Mandates: Neutering the First Amendment in the Digital Age, 3 J.L. & POL'Y FOR INFO. SOC'Y 197, 202-10 (2007).
126. Christopher S. Yoo, Free Speech and the Myth of the Internet as an Unintermediated Experience, 78 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 697, 739-50 (2010) [hereinafter Yoo, Free Speech];.
127. Laurence H. Tribe, Why the Federal Communications Commission Should Not Adopt a Broad View of the "Primary Video" Carriage Obligation: A Reply to the Broadcast Organizations, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, ex parte, CS Dkt. No. 98-120, Nov. 24, 2003http://fjallfoss.fcc. gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6515291211.
128. Transcript of Oral Argument at 34-35, United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Va., 116 S. Ct. 1036 (1995) (Nos. 94-1893, 94-1900);.
129. Brief for Petitioner Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. at 11-22, Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (No. 00-1222).
130. Owen M. Fiss, The Censorship of Television, 93 NW. U. L. REV. 1215 (1999).
131. Gregory P. Magarian, Regulating Political Parties under a "Public Rights" First Amendment, 44 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1939, 1943 (2003) (criticizing the fact that the Court "treats the freedom of expression . . . as private, negative rights intended to shield individual autonomy against government regulation").
132. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (1803);.
133. Robert Post & Reva Siegel, Roe Rage: Democratic Constitutionalism and Backlash, 42 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 373, 375 (2007).
134. JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST: A THEORY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 105-16 (1980);.
135. Note, Deference to Legislative Fact Determinations in First Amendment Cases after Turner Broadcasting, 111 HARV. L. REV. 2312, 2317 (1998)
136. Cf. MARK TUSHNET, TAKING THE CONSTITUTION AWAY FROM THE COURTS 1 (1999).
137. Compare Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358-61 (2003), .
138. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391-94 (1992).
139. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 9 (2005).
140. Adam Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts, 59 VAND. L. REV. 793, 805-13 (2006).
141. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 799-800, 806 (1985) (noting the requirement of viewpoint-neutrality even in nonpublic forums).
142. Daryl J. Levinson, Rights Essentialism and Remedial Equilibration, 99 COLUM. L. REV. 857, 869 (1999).
143. Marvin Ammori, Beyond Content Neutrality: Understanding Content- Based Promotion of Democratic Speech, 61 FED. COMM. L.J. 273, 288-91 (2009).
144. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 201-04 (2003).
145. Cf. Developments in the Law-State Action and the Public/Private Distinction, 123 HARV. L. REV. 1248, 1303-04 (2010).
146. Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 791-92 (1996) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
147. Robert C. Post, Subsidized Speech, 106 YALE L.J. 151, 151-52 (1996).
148. Frederick Schauer, Too Hard: Unconstitutional Conditions and the Chimera of Constitutional Consistency, 72 DENV. U. L. REV. 989, 990 (1995).
149. Elena Kagan, The Changing Faces of First Amendment Neutrality: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Rust v. Sullivan, and the Problem of Content-Based Underinclusion, 1992 SUP. CT. REV. 29, 67, 72-73 (discussing fighting words and subsidized speech);.
150. Charles W. Logan, Jr., Getting beyond Scarcity: A New Paradigm for Assessing the Constitutionality of Broadcast Regulation, 85 CALIF. L. REV. 1687, 1741-42 (1997).
151. Denver Area, 518 U.S. at 739 (plurality opinion) (contrasting editors and conduits such as common carriers);.
152. Angela J. Campbell, Publish or Carriage: Approaches to Analyzing the First Amendment Rights of Telephone Companies, 70 N.C. L. REV. 1071, 1144-49 (1992);.
153. Philip J. Weiser, Toward a Next Generation Regulatory Strategy, 35 LOY. U. CHI. L.J. 41, 64-65 (2003).
154. PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 86-88 (1980).
155. Robert Post, Recuperating First Amendment Doctrine, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1249, 1252 (1995).
156. Burt Neuborne, Speech, Technology, and the Emergence of a Tricameral Media: You Can't Tell the Players without a Scorecard, 17 HASTINGS COMM. & ENT. L.J. 17, 21 & nn.16-19, 27 (1994) (discussing printers as speakers and conduits).
157. Cf. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n of Calif., 475 U.S. 1, 9 (1986).
158. City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 58 (1994);.
159. cf. John Fee, Eminent Domain and the Sanctity of Home, 81 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 783, 786-88 (2006);.
160. Stephanie M. Stern, The Inviolate Home: Housing Exceptionalism in the Fourth Amendment, 95 CORNELL L. REV. 905, 913 (2010).
161. David H. Steinberg, Note, Constructing Homes for the Homeless? Searching for a Fourth Amendment Standard, 41 DUKE L.J. 1508, 1536-40 (1992).
162. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
163. Marc Jonathan Blitz, Stanley in Cyberspace: Why the Privacy Protection of the First Amendment Should Be More Like That of the Fourth, 62 HASTINGS L.J. 357, 362 (2010).
164. But see Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990).
165. City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 58 (1994).
166. Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dep't, 397 U.S. 728, 737-38 (1970).
167. FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 748-49 (1978).
168. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 483-84 (1988).
169. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 86-87 (1949).
170. Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 147-48 (1943).
171. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414-16 (1989);.
172. RONALD DWORKIN, FREEDOM'S LAW: THE MORAL READING OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 24-25 (1996);.
173. JOHN RAWLS, POLITICAL LIBERALISM 257-88 (expanded ed. 2005);.
174. Michael Adler, Note, Cyberspace, General Searches, and Digital Contraband: The Fourth Amendment and the Net-Wide Search, 105 YALE L.J. 1093, 1110 (1996);.
175. Note, The Impermeable Life: Unsolicited Communications in the Marketplace of Ideas, 118 HARV. L. REV. 1314, 1315 (2005).
176. JOSHUA COHEN, Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy, in PHILOSOPHY, POLITICS, DEMOCRACY: SELECTED ESSAYS 16, 25-28 (2009);.
177. ADAM SWIFT, POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: A BEGINNER'S GUIDE FOR STUDENTS AND POLITICIANS 191-94 (2006);.
178. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45 (emphasis added).
179. Cent. Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, U.S. 557, 564 (1980).
180. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377 (1968).
181. Miguel Helft, Google's Buses Help Its Workers Beat the Rush, N.Y. TIMES, Mar. 10, 2007.
182. HARDY GREEN, THE COMPANY TOWN: THE INDUSTRIAL EDENS AND SATANIC MILLS THAT SHAPED THE AMERICAN ECONOMY 3-4 (2010).
183. Pouillon v. City of Owosso, 206 F.3d 711, 717 (6th Cir. 2000).
184. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 179-80 (1983).
185. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 550-51 (1965).
186. Women Strike for Peace v. Morton, 472 F.2d 1273, 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (Wright, J., concurring).
187. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'n, 460 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1983);.
188. Strict Scrutiny in the Middle Forum, 122 HARV. L. REV. 2140, 2143-44 (2009).
189. Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 2984 n.11 (2010).
190. City of Madison Joint Sch. Dist. No. 8 v. Wis. Emp't Relations Comm'n, 429 U.S. 167, 174 & n.6 (1976) (school board meetings);.
191. Se. Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 555 (1975).
192. Cf. City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 417-19 (1993).
193. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 802 (1985).
194. Marc Rohr, The Ongoing Mystery of the Limited Public Forum, 33 NOVA L. REV. 299, 300 & n.3 (2009);.
195. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 830 (1995).
196. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
197. Justice for All v. Faulkner, 410 F.3d 760, 769-70 (5th Cir. 2005);.
198. Compare Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 899 (2010), with id. at 945 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
199. PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 87 (1980).
200. Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507, 520-21 (1976).
201. Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 (1982).
202. RICHARD B. KIELBOWICZ, NEWS IN THE MAIL: THE PRESS, POST OFFICE, AND PUBLIC INFORMATION, 1700-1860S (1989);.
203. Richard B. Kielbowicz & Linda Lawson, Reduced-Rate Postage for Nonprofit Organizations: A Policy History, Critique, and Proposal, 11 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL'Y 347, 358-60 (1988).
204. Anuj C. Desai, The Transformation of Statutes into Constitutional Law: How Early Post Office Policy Shaped Modern First Amendment Doctrine, 58 HASTINGS L.J. 671 passim (2007).
205. Kelly B. Olds, The Challenge to the U.S. Postal Monopoly, 1839-1851, 15 CATO J. 1, 5-7 (1995).
206. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns, 453 U.S. 114.
207. Lamont v. Postmaster Gen., 381 U.S. 301, 305-07 (1965).
208. Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 153-59 (1946).
209. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 7 (empowering Congress "[t]o establish Post Offices and post Roads").
210. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Council of Greenburgh Civic Ass'ns, 453 U.S. 114, 128-30 (1981).
211. Xeni Jardin, US Postal Mail Rate Hikes Screw Micro- Publishers: Thanks, Time Warner!, BOINGBOING (May 18, 2008, 11:11 AM), http://www.boingboing.net/ 2008/05/18/us-postal-mail-rate.html.
212. Ethan Epstein, Netflix Is the Big Loser in Postal Service Changes, MSNBC.COM (Mar. 30, 2010, 1:04:10 PM), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36100708/ns/ business-the-big-money/.
213. Interview with Michael Drobac, Dir. of Gov't Relations, Netflix, in Las Vegas, Nev. (Jan. 11, 2011).
214. Common carrier rules require a company to serve all comers on terms and prices that do not discriminate among similarly situated users. Nat'l Ass'n of Regulatory Util. Comm'rs v. FCC, 525 F.2d 630, 641-42 (D.C. Cir. 1976);.
215. Thomas B. Nachbar, The Public Network, 17 COMMLAW CONSPECTUS 67, 76-77 (2008).
216. TIM WU, THE MASTER SWITCH: THE RISE AND FALL OF INFORMATION EMPIRES 22-25 (2010).
217. JONATHAN E. NUECHTERLEIN & PHILIP J. WEISER, DIGITAL CROSSROADS 360-78 (2005). 208.
218. Time Warner Entm't Co. v. FCC, 93 F.3d 957, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
219. Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 791-92 (1996) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
220. Time Warner, 93 F.3d at 971-73.
221. Denver Area, 518 U.S. at 791-92 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
222. Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n, Inc. v. Gulf Power Co., 534 U.S. 327, 330-31 (2002).
223. Time Warner, 93 F.3d at 975-76.
224. Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 129-31(1989).
225. Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 943-44 (2010).
226. Indeed, for decades, AT&T was the world's largest company. See Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 740 F.2d 465, 468 (7th Cir. 1984);.
227. PETER W. HUBER ET AL., FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW 16-17, 798-99 (2d ed. 1999);.
228. The Oxford English Dictionary and Webster's Dictionary both list "architect" as a verb. Ammon Shea, Architecting a Verb?, OUPBLOG (July 31, 2008, 12:35 PM), http://blog.oup.com/2008/07/architect/.
229. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 190-203 (4th Cir. 1994),.
230. vacated and remanded, 516 U.S. 415 (1996);.
231. Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, 22 FCC Rcd. 15, 289, 15, 369 (2007) [hereinafter 700 MHz].
232. AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. 366, 404 n.2 (1999) (discussing Act of June 18, 1910, ch. 309, § 7, 36 Stat. 544-545).
233. Kevin Werbach, The Federal Computer Commission, 84 N.C. L. REV. 1, 3-5, 10 (2005).
234. Steven G. Gey, Reopening the Public Forum-From Sidewalksto Cyberspace, 58 OHIO ST. L.J. 1535, 1611 (1998)
235. Robert Cannon, The Legacy of the Federal Communication Commission's Computer Inquiries, 55 FED. COMM. L.J. 167, 186-87 (2003).
236. Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, 20 FCC Rcd. 14, 853, 14, 855-57 (2005).
237. Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
238. CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 394-96 (1981).
239. FCC v. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775, 797-802 (1978).
240. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
241. (quoting United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649, 668 n.27 (1972)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
242. United States v. Associated Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1943).
243. Satellite Broad. & Commc'ns Ass'n v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337, 351 (4th Cir. 2001);.
244. Time Warner Entm't Co. v. FCC, 93 F.3d 957, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1996);.
245. The Commissions Cable Horizontal & Vertical Ownership Limits, 20 FCC Rcd. 9374, 9376 (2005).
246. Daniel E. Ho & Kevin M. Quinn, Viewpoint Diversity and Media Consolidation: An Empirical Study, 61 STAN. L. REV. 781, 860 (2009) ("Neither convergence nor divergence inexorably follows from consolidation.").
247. FCC v. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775, 797-802 (1978);.
248. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 401-02 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding this burden does not violate the First Amendment).
249. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. at 797-802 (endorsing the FCC's diversification goal);.
250. Nat'l Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 206-08, 224-27 (1943);.
251. Prometheus Radio Project, 373 F.3d at 383, 401-02.
252. ROBERT W. MCCHESNEY, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, MASS MEDIA, AND DEMOCRACY: THE BATTLE FOR THE CONTROL OF U.S. BROADCASTING, 1928-1935, at 18-22 (1994).
253. Time Warner, 240 F.3d at 1129-33 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (invalidating FCC's selected ownership limits for lack of substantial evidence under the Turner test).
254. Time Warner Entm't Co. v. United States, 211 F.3d 1313, 1316-20 (D.C. Cir. 2000).
255. See Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, 13 FCC Rcd. 6907, 6927-30 (1998).
256. EchoStar Communications Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd. 20, 559, 20, 562-63, 20, 575 (2002).
257. Dill-White Radio Act, ch. 169, § 17, 44 Stat. 1162, 1169-70 (1927) (repealed 1934);.
258. Joseph H. Weber, The Bell System Divestiture: Background, Implementation, and Outcome, 61 FED. COMM. L.J. 21, 22 & n.2 (2008).
259. United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. 131, 189-90 (1982), .
260. aff'd sub nom. Maryland v. United States, 460 U.S. 1001 (1983).
261. BellSouth Corp. v. FCC, 144 F.3d 58, 67-68 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
262. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 552 F. Supp. at 180-86.
263. ERIC BURNS, INFAMOUS SCRIBBLERS: THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE ROWDY BEGINNINGS OF AMERICAN JOURNALISM passim (2006).
264. BENEDICT ANDERSON, IMAGINED COMMUNITIES: REFLECTIONS ON THE ORIGIN AND SPREAD OF NATIONALISM 37-46 (1991) (discussing nationhood and a common literature);.
265. Akilah N. Folami, Deliberative Democracy on Air: Reinvigorate Localism-Resuscitate Radio's Subversive Past, 63 FED. COMM. L.J. 141, 151-157 (2010).
266. Fort Harrison Telecasting Corp. v. FCC, 324 F.2d 379, 383 (D.C. Cir. 1963);.
267. The Darkened Channels: UHF Television and the FCC, 75 HARV. L. REV. 1578, 1581 (1962).
268. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 398-99 (3d Cir. 2004).
269. Congress tied the satellite rules to a compulsory copyright license subsidy. Satellite Broad. & Commc'ns Ass'n v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337, 348-49 (4th Cir. 2001).
270. 1927-1933 F.R.C. ANN. REP. 48 (Supp. 1928) (General Order No. 40).
271. Peter J. Wosh, Going Postal, 61 AM. ARCHIVIST 220, 224 (1998) (review essay).
272. The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of press-specific taxation. Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439, 444-48 (1991) (discussing previous precedents).
273. Cellular Communications System, 86 F.C.C.2d 469, 502 (1981), .
274. modified on recons., 89 F.C.C.2d 58 (1982).
275. FCC v. Allentown Broad. Corp., 349 U.S. 358 (1955);.
276. Peoples Broad. Co. v. United States, 209 F.2d 286 (D.C. Cir. 1953).
277. Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television Programming, 11 FCC Rcd. 10, 660 (1996);.
278. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am. v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
279. Satellite Broad. & Commc'ns Ass'n v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing H.R. REP. NO. 106-464, at 101 (1999)(Conf. Rep.)).
280. Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 22 FCC Rcd. 5101, 5102, 5116-22 (2007).
281. Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd. 4554, 4557-601 (2011).
282. FCC v. Allentown Broad. Corp., 349 U.S. 358 (1955);.
283. Peoples Broad. Co. v. United States, 209 F.2d 286 (D.C. Cir. 1953).
284. Policies and Rules Concerning Children's Television Programming, 11 FCC Rcd. 10, 660 (1996);.
285. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am. v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 798-800 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
286. Satellite Broad. & Commc'ns Ass'n v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337, 343 (4th Cir. 2001) (citing H.R. REP. NO. 106-464, at 101 (1999)(Conf. Rep.)).
287. Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 22 FCC Rcd. 5101, 5102, 5116-22 (2007).
288. Connect America Fund, 26 FCC Rcd. 4554, 4557-601 (2011).
289. Century Fed., Inc. v. City of Palo Alto, 710 F. Supp. 1552, 1553-54 (N.D. Cal. 1987) (applying "the rationale in Miami Herald " to strike down build-out rules).
290. Telesat Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Riviera Beach, 773 F. Supp. 383, 399-406 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (applying Red Lion to uphold build-out requirement).
291. Martin v. City of Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 145-46 (1943).
292. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
293. LARRY D. KRAMER, THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES: POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM AND JUDICIAL REVIEW passim (2004);.
294. Jeremy Waldron, The Constitutional Conception of Democracy, in DEMOCRACY 51, 51-84 (David Estlund ed., 2002);.
295. David J. Barron, What's Wrong with Conservative Constitutionalism? Two Styles of Progressive Constitutional Critique and the Choice They Present, 1 HARV. L. & POL'Y REV. NOTICE & COMMENT, Sept. 18, 2006, http://hlpronline.com/2006/09/ what%E2%80%99swrongwithconservativeconstitutionalism-two-styles-of- progressiveconstitutional-critique-and-the-choice-they-.
296. Owen Fiss, Between Supremacy and Exclusivity, 57 SYRACUSE L. REV. 187, 199- 200 (2007).
297. Gregory P. Magarian, Market Triumphalism, Electoral Pathologies, and the Abiding Wisdom of First Amendment Access Rights, 35 HOFSTRA L. REV. 1373, 1388-1405 (2007).
298. Joshua Cohen, Professor, Stanford Univ., 2011 Dewey Lecture in Law and Philosophy: Democracy v. Citizens United ? at the University of ChicagoLaw School (Apr. 20, 2011), available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiWJAdFTIxQ.
299. Cf. Joseph Goldstein, The Oldest Bench Ever, SLATE (Jan. 18, 2011), http://www.slate.com/articles/news-and-politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/ the-oldest-bench-ever.single. html(notingthattwelvepercentoffederaljudgesareovereightyyearsold).
300. WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR. & JOHN FEREJOHN, A REPUBLIC OF STATUTES: THE NEW AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 7-9 (2010).
301. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 201-03 (2003);.
302. Daryl J. Levinson, Rights Essentialism and Remedial Equilibration, 99 COLUM. L. REV. 857, 884-89 (1999) (suggesting a constitutional right does not exist separately from the available remedy to vindicate that right);.
303. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
304. WILLIAM N. ESKRIDGE, JR. & JOHN FEREJOHN, A REPUBLIC OF STATUTES: THE NEW AMERICAN CONSTITUTION 7-9 (2010).
305. Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186, 201-03 (2003);.
306. Daryl J. Levinson, Rights Essentialism and Remedial Equilibration, 99 COLUM. L. REV. 857, 884-89 (1999).
307. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
308. Sara Jerome, Net Neutrality Fight Turns to First Amendment, NAT. J., Dec. 28, 2009.
309. GEORGE LAKOFF, DON'T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT!: KNOW YOUR VALUES AND FRAME THE DEBATE xv-xvi, 3-10 (2004).
310. Harry Frankfurt, Equality as a Moral Ideal, 98 ETHICS 21, 21-22, 33-35 (1987);.
311. Paula Casal, Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough, 217 ETHICS 296, 296 n.2 (2007) (collecting sources);.
312. JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 277 (1971).
313. Peter Westen, The Empty Idea of Equality, 95 HARV. L. REV. 537 (1982).
314. Id. at 23-29. The negative-liberty model suggests that part of the decision is wrong.
315. Buckley, 424 U.S. at 48-49 (quoting N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 266 (1964)).
316. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 130 S. Ct. 2705, 2725 (2010).
317. C.f. Ariz. Free Enter. Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 131 S. Ct. 2806, 2814, 2828-29 (2011);.
318. Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 739-40 (2008).
319. Fredreka Schouten, McCain Raises Cash While Limited to Public Funds: Obama Also Aided by Money outside His Campaign, USA TODAY, Sept. 10, 2008, at 4A.
320. Robert H. Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First AmendmentProblems, 47 IND. L.J. 1, 23-35 (19d71).
321. ROBERT A. DAHL, DEMOCRACY AND ITS CRITICS 5-7 (1989);.
322. JOSEPH A. SCHUMPETER, CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM AND DEMOCRACY 269 (10th ed. 1965);.
323. Yochai Benkler, Through the Looking Glass: Alice and the Constitutional Foundations of the Public Domain, 66 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 173, 187-88 (2003) (contrasting formal and substantive conceptions of autonomy).
324. David Miller, Introduction, in THE LIBERTY READER 1, 2 n.1 (David Miller ed., 2006).
325. ROSS HARRISON, DEMOCRACY 106-08 (1993) (discussing John Stuart Mill).
326. Ronald Dworkin, Do Liberty and Equality Conflict?, in LIVING AS EQUALS 39, 39-43 (Paul Barker ed., 1996).
327. Martha C. Nussbaum, Flawed Foundations: The Philosophical Critique of (a Particular Type of) Economics, 64 U. CHI. L. REV. 1197, 1197-99 (1997).
328. THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN (C.B. Macpherson ed., Penguin Books 1968) (1651);.
329. JOHN LOCKE, TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT (Peter Laslett ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 1988) (1690);.
330. JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT AND THE FIRST AND SECOND DISCOURSES (Susan Dunn ed., Yale Univ. Press 2002) (1762).
331. RONALD DWORKIN, LAW'S EMPIRE 1-5 (1986).
332. Daniel J. Solove, The First Amendment as Criminal Procedure, 82 N.Y.U. L. REV. 112, 113-20 (2007).
333. CASS R. SUNSTEIN, DEMOCRACY AND THE PROBLEM OF FREE SPEECH 101-03 (1995).
334. BARBARA VAN SCHEWICK, INTERNET ARCHITECTURE AND INNOVATION 298-354 (2010).
335. Enrique Armijo, Media Ownership Regulation: A Comparative Perspective, 37 GA. J. INT'L & COMP. L. 421, 439-44 (2009).
336. Jack H. Beebe, Institutional Structure and Program Choices in Television Markets, 91 Q.J. ECON. 15, 35-36 (1977);.
337. Mike Kinsley, Slate and Microsoft, SLATE (Dec. 26, 1997, 3:30 AM), http://www.slate.com/id/2217/.
338. Yochai Benkler, A Free Irresponsible Press: Wikileaks and the Battle over the Soul of the Networked Fourth Estate, 46 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 311, 344-45, 365-66 (2011);.
339. cf. Andrei Soldatov, Kremlin's Plan to Prevent a Facebook Revolution, MOSCOW TIMES, Feb. 28, 2011, available at http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/ article/kremlins-plan-to-prevent-a-facebookrevolution/431725.html.
340. David Strömberg, Radio's Impact on Public Spending, 119 Q.J. ECON. 189, 189 (2004).
341. Oona A. Hathaway, The Cost of Commitment, 55 STAN. L. REV. 1821, 1837 & n.52 (2003).
342. ITHIEL DE SOLA POOL, TECHNOLOGIES OF FREEDOM 2 (1983).
343. Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126, 130-31 (1989).
344. PruneYard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 87 (1980).
345. Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
346. FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 770 & n.4 (Brennan, J., dissenting).
347. For satellite, there is a circuit split. Compare Satellite Broad. & Commc'ns Ass'n v. FCC, 275 F.3d 337, 352-65 (4th Cir. 2001).
348. Time Warner Entm't Co. v. FCC, 93 F.3d 957, 974-77 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
349. C. Edwin Baker, Keynote Address: Three Cheers for Red Lion, 60 ADMIN. L. REV. 861, 866-67 (2008).
350. Brief of Amici Curiae Free Press et al. in Support of Neither Party at 6, 21-41, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009) (No. 07-582), 2008 WL 2415162.
351. Compare Time Warner Entm't Co. v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126, 1129 (D.C. Cir. 2001), .
352. Time Warner, 93 F.3d at 966-67.
353. Time Warner, 240 F.3d at 1128;.
354. Time Warner, 93 F.3d at 966-67.
355. FCC v. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775, 797-802 (1978);.
356. Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256 (1974);.
357. Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc., 327 U.S. 146, 151-59 (1946).
358. AT&T Corp. v. City of Portland, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1146, 1154 (D. Or. 1999), aff'd 216 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2000).
359. Comcast Cablevision of Broward Cnty., Inc. v. Broward Cnty., Fla., 124 F. Supp. 2d 685, 694 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
360. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 871 (1997).
361. Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989) (same);.
362. FCC v. Pacifica Found., 438 U.S. 726, 770 n.4 (1978) (Brennan, J., dissenting) .
363. Pacifica Found. v. FCC, 556 F.2d 9, 29 (1977)).
364. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 279-80 (1964).
365. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).
366. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 359 (2003).
367. Time Warner Entm't Co. v. FCC, 93 F.3d 957, 969, 975 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
368. (quoting Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20, 65 (1945)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
369. Cf. Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727, 741-42 (1996) (Breyer, J.) (plurality opinion);.
370. Eric Berger, The Collision of the Takings and State Sovereign Immunity Doctrines, 63 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 493, 599 (2006).
371. Eric Berger, In Search of a Theory of Deference: The Eighth Amendment, Democratic Pedigree, and Constitutional Decision Making, 88 WASH. U. L. REV. 1, 70 (2010) (encouraging judicial candor).
372. Daniel A. Farber & John E. Nowak, The Misleading Nature of Public Forum Analysis: Content and Context in First Amendment Adjudication, 70 VA. L. REV. 1219, 1234 (1984) (arguing forum analysis has been "diverting attention from real first amendment issues").
373. Time Warner, 93 F.3d at 971-77.
374. Rob Frieden, Invoking and Avoiding the First Amendment: How Internet Service Providers Leverage Their Status as Both Content Creators and Neutral Conduits, 12 U. PA. J. CONST. L. 1279 (2010);.
375. YOCHAI BENKLER, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUSTICE, N.Y. UNIV. SCH. OF LAW, PROPERTY, COMMONS, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT: TOWARDS A CORE COMMON INFRASTRUCTURE 30 (2001) [hereinafter BENKLER, WHITE PAPER].
376. CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367 (1981);.
377. FCC v. Nat'l Citizens Comm. for Broad., 436 U.S. 775 (1978);.
378. Nat'l Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943);.
379. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2004).
380. J. Gregory Sidak, Telecommunications in Jericho, 81 CALIF. L. REV. 1209, 1231 & n.63 (1993) (collecting commentary).
381. Red Lion Broad. Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367, 373-75 (1969).
382. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
383. Cf. News Am. Publ'g Inc. v. FCC, 844 F.2d 800, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (pertaining to an ownership limit aimed squarely at particular speakers).
384. CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 396-97 (1982).
385. Time Warner Entm't Co. v. FCC, 240 F.3d 1126, 1129-33 (D.C. Cir. 2001);.
386. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. v. United States, 42 F.3d 181, 190- 203 (4th Cir. 1994).
387. vacated and remanded, 516 U.S. 415 (1996).
388. Time Warner, 240 F.3d at 1137-40, 1144.
389. Note, The Message in the Medium: The First Amendment on the Information Superhighway, 107 HARV. L. REV. 1062, 1096-98 (1994).
390. Summary of Verizon's Complaint against Montgomery County, Maryland, VERIZON (June 28, 2006), http://newscenter.verizon.com/pressreleases/related- items/19887.pdf.
391. Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 401-02 (3d Cir. 2004);.
392. Fox Television Stations v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, 1045-46 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
393. Randolph May, Time for the FCC to Respect the First Amendment, INSIDER, Summer 2010, at 15, 19;.
394. Kyle McSlarrow, Pres., Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n, Net Neutrality: First Amendment Rhetoric in Search of the Constitution: Remarks Before Media Institute (Dec. 9, 2009), availableathttp://www.ncta.com/ PublicationType/Speech/Net-Neutrality-First-Amendment-Rhetoric-in-Search-of-the- Constitution.aspx.
395. Editorial, Keeping the Net Neutral, L.A. TIMES, Dec. 2, 2010.
396. Editorial, Net Neutrality Back in Court, N.Y. TIMES, March 6, 2011, at A20.
397. Vincent Blasi, The Pathological Perspective and the First Amendment, 85 COLUM. L. REV. 449, 449-50 (1985).
398. Sable Commc'ns of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126, 130-31 (1989).
399. LAWRENCE LESSIG, CODE AND OTHER LAWS OF CYBERSPACE 7 (1999).
400. cf. Gregory P. Magarian, The First Amendment, the Public-Private Distinction, and Nongovernmental Suppression of Wartime Political Debate, 73 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 101, 115-27 (2004).
401. Jack M. Balkin, Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1, 33-38 (2004).