Symbolic Communication as Speech in United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence

• Autorzy: Łukasz Machaj
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids government to pass any law which abridges freedom of speech. Notwithstanding the absolute tenor of the clause, this guarantee is clearly not limitless; its boundaries are established mainly in the course of Constitutional adjudication. The United States Supreme Court has extended free speech guarantees to so-called symbolic speech, i.e. to nonverbal expression of ideas, views or emotions. The article analyzes basic criteria and limits of First Amendment protection with respect to such instances of (alleged) symbolic communication as flying a red flag, refusing to salute the U.S. flag, wearing a black armband, silently protesting segregation rules, burning a crucifix, burning a draft card, sleeping in a park and nude dancing. In some cases the level of protection given to symbolic speech is deemed analogous to that accorded to written or oral expression; in other cases the Supreme Court applies the so-called O'Brien standard, which is an instrument designed specifically for judging laws relevant to this mode of communication. (original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Freedom of speech; Judicial decision; Constitution

PL

Wolność słowa; Orzecznictwo sądu; Konstytucja

• Czasopismo: Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: 1
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 38--50

Twórcy

autor

Łukasz Machaj

• University of Wrocław, Poland

Bibliografia

• David A Strauss, Freedom of Speech and the Common-Law Constitution in Lee C Bollinger and Geoffrey R Stone (eds), Eternally Vigilant: Free Speech in the Modern Era(The University of Chicago Press 2002) 33.
• Cass R Sunstein, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech (The Free Press 1995) XI.
• Eric Barendt, Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press 2007 ) 48.
• Rodney A Smolla, Free Speech in an Open Society (Alfred A. Knopf 1992) 18-19.
• Wojciech Sadurski, Freedom of Speech and Its Limits (Kluwer Academic Publishers2001) 8-35.
• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (Merriam-Webster's 1996) 398.
• Melville B Nimmer, The Meaning of Symbolic Speech Under the First Amendment (1973) 21 "UCLA Law Review" 32-33.
• Louis Henkin, Foreword: On Drawing Lines' (1968) 82 "Harvard Law Review" 79.
• Paul Berckmans, The Semantics of Symbolic Speech (1997) 16 "Law and Philosophy" 152.
• W Barnett Pearce, Communication and the Human Condition (Southern Illinois University Press 1989) 25.
• Beth Haslett, Communication: Strategic Action in Context (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1987) 4-5.
• Robert Horton, Richard Brenders, Communication and Consequences: Laws of Interaction (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1996) 17-18.
• Wendy Leeds-Hurwitz, Semiotics and Communication: Signs, Codes, Cultures (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1993) 15.
• Ralph V Exline, B J Fehr, Applications of Semiosis to the Study of Visual Interactions in Aron W Siegman & Stanley Feldstein (eds), Nonverbal Behavior and Communication(Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1978) 121.
• Edwin C Baker, Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech (Oxford University Press 1989)79.
• Franklyn S Haiman, Speech and Law in a Free Society (The University of Chicago Press1981) 31.
• Raymond Gozzi, Jr., A Shared Field Model of Communication (2004) 61 "ETC.: A Review of General Semantics" 396.
• Frank A Morrow, Speech, Expression, and the Constitution (1975) 85 "Ethics" 236-242.
• Frederick Schauer, Freedom of Expression Adjudication in Europe and in the United States: a Case Study in Comparative Constitutional Architecture in Georg Nolte (ed) Europe and US Constitutionalism (Cambridge University Press 2006) 60-61.
• Edwin C Baker, Scope of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech (1978) 25 "UCLA Law Review" 990, 1009-1029.
• Thomas I Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression (Random House 1970) 79-81.
• The United States v O'Brien 391 US 367, 376 (1968).
• Spence v Washington 418 US 405, 410-411 (1974).
• Larry Alexander, Is There a Right of Freedom of Expression? (Cambridge University Press 2005) 41-42.
• Steven L Emanuel, Constitutional Law (Emanuel Publishing Corp. 2000) 427.
• Geoffrey R Stone, Louis M Seidman, Cass R Sunstein, Mark V Tushnet, The First Amendment (Aspen Law & Business 1999) 105-116.
• Stromberg v People of State of California 283 US 368 (1931).
• Barnette v West Virginia Board of Education 319 US 624, 632-633 (1943).
• Tinker v Des Moines School District 393 US 503, 506 (1969).
• Street v New York 394 US 576 (1969); Smith v Goguen 415 US 566 (1974).
• Texas v Johnson, 491 US 397 (1989).
• The United States v Eichman 496US 310 (1990).
• Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1 (1976).
• Clark v Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 US 268 (1984).
• R.A.V. v City of St. Paul, 505 US 377 (1992).
• Virginia v Black, 538 US 343 (2003).
• Schad v Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 US 61 (1981).
• Barnes v Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 US 560 (1991).
• City of Erie v Pap's A. M., 529 US 277 (2000).