scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessPosted Content

A New First Amendment Model for Evaluating Content-Based Regulation of Internet Pornography: Revising the Strict Scrutiny Model to Better Reflect the Realities of the Modern Media Age

TLDR
In this article, a new model for evaluating content-based laws regulating media programming that is not political speech is proposed, which takes into account and incorporates the realities of the modern media world.
Abstract
In the modern media age, the number of media venues, along with the types of information and programming those venues carry, is exploding. Nowhere is that explosion more evident than with the Internet. On the positive side, the Internet offers a wealth of information and communications opportunities. But, on the negative side, it brings a boundless store of harmful material within easy access of children. In recognition of the destructive effects of such material - especially obscenity and pornography - Congress on several occasions has tried to curb the accessibility of this material to children. The Supreme Court, however, has struck down these attempts using a strict scrutiny approach. Part I of this Article outlines the case against the Court's current use of strict scrutiny. This approach hinges on a single factor: whether or not a regulation of speech hinges on a content distinction. Once such a distinction is found, the law is almost always struck down, regardless of the speech burdens actually imposed by the law, whether the subject speech is in plentiful supply in other media venues, or whether the laws would result in a banishment of certain ideas from the public discourse. This myopic focus on content discrimination is outmoded in today's multimedia world and prohibits regulations of speech even when the burdens imposed by the law are slight and the speech remains available and accessible in the broader marketplace of ideas. Part II of the Article proposes a new judicial model for evaluating content-based laws regulating media programming that is not political speech. This new model examines the actual burdens placed on the subject speech. It also considers perhaps the most vulnerable freedom in the current media environment - the freedom of the unwilling recipient to avoid unwanted and offensive media speech. Furthermore, the new model - a variation of the intermediate scrutiny approach now used for so-called content-neutral regulations of speech - takes into account and incorporates the realities of the modern media world. It does so by recognizing that there is a vast array of media channels through which any one type of speech can flow, and that a restriction of speech in one venue may not rise to the level of an unconstitutional censorship.

read more

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

The First Amendment Right to Record Images of Police in Public Places: The Unreasonable Slipperiness of Reasonableness & Possible Paths Forward

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that multiple First Amendment interests, ranging from the watchdog role of the press to discovery of truth under the marketplace of ideas theory, mandate that the reasonable-restrictions standard, which is now deployed by most courts to decide if this nascent right may permissibly be abridged, be jettisoned in favor of a more rigorous, speech-friendly approach.
Journal Article

Trapped in Public: The Regulation of Street Harassment and Cyber-Harassment Under the Captive Audience Doctrine

JoAnne Sweeny
- 01 Jan 2016 - 
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that laws regulating street or cyber-harassment should be protected from First Amendment scrutiny under the captive audience doctrine and demonstrate that 652 legislators can attack the problem of street and cyberharassment without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Journal ArticleDOI

Strict in Theory, But Feeble in Fact? First Amendment Strict Scrutiny and The Protection of Speech

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the beginnings of the strict scrutiny test and the underpinnings of its subsequent dilution and argue that compelling state interests are proliferating in a manner that is harmful to robust speech protection.
References
More filters
Journal Article

The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says

Randy E. Barnett
- 01 Nov 2006 - 
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine thirteen crucial pieces of historical evidence that either directly contradict the state law and residual rights models, undercut the collective rights model, or strongly support the individual natural rights and federalism models.
Journal ArticleDOI

The First Amendment Right to Record Images of Police in Public Places: The Unreasonable Slipperiness of Reasonableness & Possible Paths Forward

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that multiple First Amendment interests, ranging from the watchdog role of the press to discovery of truth under the marketplace of ideas theory, mandate that the reasonable-restrictions standard, which is now deployed by most courts to decide if this nascent right may permissibly be abridged, be jettisoned in favor of a more rigorous, speech-friendly approach.
Journal Article

Trapped in Public: The Regulation of Street Harassment and Cyber-Harassment Under the Captive Audience Doctrine

JoAnne Sweeny
- 01 Jan 2016 - 
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that laws regulating street or cyber-harassment should be protected from First Amendment scrutiny under the captive audience doctrine and demonstrate that 652 legislators can attack the problem of street and cyberharassment without running afoul of the First Amendment.
Journal ArticleDOI

Strict in Theory, But Feeble in Fact? First Amendment Strict Scrutiny and The Protection of Speech

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the beginnings of the strict scrutiny test and the underpinnings of its subsequent dilution and argue that compelling state interests are proliferating in a manner that is harmful to robust speech protection.
Posted Content

The Ninth Amendment: It Means What it Says

TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine thirteen crucial pieces of historical evidence that either directly contradict the state law and residual rights models, undercut the collective rights model, or strongly support the individual natural rights and federalism models.
Related Papers (5)