Abstract
In this chapter, the authors argue that addressing the critical information needs of the diverse American public is a compelling governmental interest, and that a fuller appreciation of the local media ecology provides regulators with the tools to narrowly tailor policy to meet the governmental duty to protect the public. Part I of this chapter traces the historical underpinnings of the U.S. Constitution’s embrace of the duty to protect citizens and will show how that duty is advanced in the modern government in the area of speech. Part II explains why strict scrutiny is not fatal to government policies focused on the provision of critical information needs to the diverse US public. This chapter will conclude with a suggestion of narrowly tailored policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abrams, Floyd. 2015. Symposium: When strict scrutiny ceased to be strict. SCOTUSblog, April 30. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/symposium-when-strict-scrutiny-ceased-to-be-strict/.
Action for Children’s Television v. Federal Communications Commission, 58 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002).
Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1 (1945).
Ayers, Ian. 1996. Narrow tailoring. UCLA Law Review 43: 1781–1829.
Bagshaw, Timothy M. 2013. Phantom standard: Compelling state interest analysis and political ideology in the affirmative action context. Utah Law Review 1: 409–435.
Beard v. Banks, 548 U.S. 521 (2006).
Breyer, Stephen. 2005. Active liberty: Interpreting our democratic constitution. New York: Vintage Books.
Bunker, Matthew D., and Emily Erickson. 2001. The jurisprudence of precision: Contrast space and narrow tailoring in First Amendment doctrine. Communication Law and Policy 6(2): 259–285.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
Communications Act of 1934 (as amended), 47 U.S.C. §§ 312(a)(7) and 315(a) (2006).
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 42 U.S.C. §11001 et seq. (1986).
Epstein, Lee, Christoper M. Parker, and Jeffrey Segal. 2013. Do justices defend the speech they hate? In-group bias, opportunism, and the First Amendment. In APSA 2013 annual meeting paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2300572.
Fleming, John Stewart. 2012. Renewing the chase: The First Amendment, campaign advertisements, and the goal of an informed citizenry. Indiana Law Journal 87: 767.
Franklin, Ben. A. 1985. Toxic cloud leaks at Carbide plant in West Virginia. The New York Times, August 12. Accessed October 1, 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/1985/08/12/us/toxic-cloud-leaks-at-carbide-plant-in-west-virginia.html.
Garfinkel, Alan. 1981. Forms of explanation: Rethinking the questions in social theory. Philosophical Review 93(1): 116–118.
Heyman, Steven J. 1991. The first duty of government: Liberty and the Fourteenth Amendment. Duke Law Journal 41(3): 507–571.
Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 188–89 (1979).
John, Richard R. 2012. From Franklin to Facebook: The civic mandate for communications. In To promote the general welfare: The case for big government, ed. Steven Conn, 156–172. New York: Oxford University Press.
Levitt, Justin. 2010. Confronting the impact of ‘citizens United’. Yale Law and Policy Review 29(1): 217–234. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41308528.
Morris Jr., John B., and Cynthia M. Wong. 2009. Revisiting user control: The emergence and success of a First Amendment theory for the internet age. First Amendment Law Review 8: 109.
Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969).
Sheppard, Stephen M. 1994. The state interest in the good citizen: Constitutional balance between the citizen and the perfectionist state. Hastings Law Journal 45: 969–1027.
Sunstein, Cass R. 1985. Interest groups in America public law. Stanford Law Review 38 Stan. L. Rev. 29 3829–3887.
Sunstein, Cass R. 1993. Informing America: Risk, disclosure, and the First Amendment. Florida State University Law Review 20(3): 653–677.
Sunstein, Cass R. 1996. Public deliberation, affirmative action, and the Supreme Court. California Law Review 84(4): 1179–1199.
Tushnet, Mark. 2000. Taking the constitution away from the courts, 154–176. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000).
Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, No. 13–1499 (2015).
Winkler, Adam. 2006. Fatal in theory and strict in fact: An empirical analysis of strict scrutiny in the federal courts. Vanderbilt Law Review 59: 793.
Wright, George R. 1997. The fourteen faces of narrowness: How courts legitimize what they do. Loyola Law Review 31: 167–212.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lloyd, M., Park, M. (2016). The Constitutional Case for Addressing Critical Information Needs. In: Lloyd, M., Friedland, L. (eds) The Communication Crisis in America, And How to Fix It. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94925-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94925-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-94924-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-94925-0
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)