No debate about freedom of speech is complete without citation to actual law. (I’m an American lawyer, so this is American law)
Brandenburg v. OH—not much discussion, but this is the source of the modern rule allowing prohibition of “imminent lawless action,” which is much more speech protective than “clear and present danger”
American Booksellers Assoc. v. Hudson—rejection of anti-pornography statute (supported by Catherine MacKinnon) on the basis that freedom of speech doesn’t authorize picking a side. Fairly detailed discussion of the trade-offs in the freedom of speech context.
Europe has picked a different balance on this issue (generally, much less speech protective).
No debate about freedom of speech is complete without citation to actual law. (I’m an American lawyer, so this is American law)
Brandenburg v. OH—not much discussion, but this is the source of the modern rule allowing prohibition of “imminent lawless action,” which is much more speech protective than “clear and present danger”
American Booksellers Assoc. v. Hudson—rejection of anti-pornography statute (supported by Catherine MacKinnon) on the basis that freedom of speech doesn’t authorize picking a side. Fairly detailed discussion of the trade-offs in the freedom of speech context.
Europe has picked a different balance on this issue (generally, much less speech protective).