Abstract
The health of democracy in the United States, which is grounded in civic debate and participation, requires that we remain vigilant in monitoring restrictions on public discourse. One reason for close scrutiny today is that heightened controls on expression in the twenty-first century are not always highly visible. They often are reflected in mere restrictions on the time, place, or manner of public discussion. Recent courts’ interpretation of First Amendment rights increasingly has supported strict controls on the time, place, or manner of protest and other forms of political dissent.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See, e.g., Ronnie J. Fischer, “’What’s in a Name?’: An Attempt to Resolve the Analytic Ambiguity’ of the Designated and Limited Public Fora,” Dickinson Law Review 107 (2003): 639–674
Calvin Massey, “Public Fora, Neutral Governments, and the Prism of Property,” Hastings Law Journal 50 (1999): 309–353
Kevin Francis O’Neill, “Disentangling the Law of Public Protest,” Loyola Law Review 45 (1999): 411–526.
For a discussion ofthe evolution ofthis jurisprudence, see Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States, 4th ed. (State College, PA: Strata Publishing, 2001), 261–271.
See Thomas J. Davis, “Assessing Constitutional Challenges to University Free Speech Zones under Public Forum Doctrine,” Indiana Law Journal 79 (2004): 267–297
Carol L. Zeiner, “Zoned Out! Examining Campus Speech Zones,” Louisiana Law Review 66 (2005): 1–61.
See Davis, “Assessing Constitutional Challenges to University Free Speech Zones under Public Forum Doctrine,” 271–272; see also Michael Schwartz, “The Place of Dissent in Inquiry, Learning and Reflection,” Peace&Change 21, no. 2 (1996): 169–181.
For a thorough discussion of this issue, see Jonathan Taniszewski, “Silence Enforced through Speech: Philadelphia and the 2000 Republican National Convention,” Temple Political&Civil Rights Law Review 12 (2002): 121–140.
See Timothy Zick, “Speech and Spatial Tactics,” Texas Law Review 84 (2006): 581–651
James J. Knicely and John W. Whitehead, “The Caging of Free Speech in America,” Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 14 (2005): 455–493
See, e.g., Mary M. Cheh, “In the Aftermath of September 11: Defending Civil Liberties in the Nation’s Capital: The Treatment of Demonstrators: Demonstrations, Security Zones, and First Amendment Protection of Special Places,” University of: the District of Columbia Law Review 8 (2004): 53–76
Michael J. Hampson, “Protesting the President: Free Speech Zones and the First Amendment,” Rutgers Law Review 58 (2005): 245–274
For a description of the rally and a discussion of police tactics, See Nick Suplina, “Crowd Control: The Troubling Mix of First Amendment Law, Political Demonstrations, and Terrorism,” The George Washington Law Review 73 (2005): 395–428
Margaret A. Blanchard, “’Why Can’t We Ever Learn?’ Cycles of Stability, Stress and Freedom of Expression in United States History,” Communication Law &Policy 7 (2002): 347–378.
Michael Kent Curtis, “Teaching Free Speech from an Incomplete Fossil Record,” Akron Law Review 34 (2000): 231–260
Paul Rosenzweig, “Civil Liberty and the Response to Terrorism,” Duquesne Law Review 42 (2004): 663–723
See, e.g., Paul Haridakis, “Citizen Access and Government Secrecy,” Saint Louis University Public Law Review 25, no. 3 (2006): 3–32.
Don Mitchell, “The Liberalization of Free Speech: Or, How Protest in Public Space is Silenced,” Stanford Agora 4 (2004): 1–45
Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, Francesca Dillman Carpentier, Andree Blumhoff, and Nico Nickel, “Selective Exposure Effects for Positive and Negative News: Testing the Robustness of the Informational Utility Model,” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 82 (2005): 181–185.
Quoted in Susan Dente Ross, “An Apologia to Radical Dissent and a Supreme Court Test to Protect It,” Communication Law & Policy 7 (2002): 401–430
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2009 Matthew J. Morgan
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Haridakis, P., Ferris, A. (2009). The Use of “Speech Zones” to Control Public Discourse in Twenty-First-Century America. In: Morgan, M.J. (eds) The Impact of 9/11 and the New Legal Landscape. The Day that Changed Everything?. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230100053_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230100053_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-37528-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-10005-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)