scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Addiction and Expression

TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the question of how the First Amendment should treat intentionally addictive speech, and argue that intentionally addictive expression does not merit First Amendment coverage, under current doctrine, any such regulation would need to satisfy strict scrutiny.
Abstract: Addictive products—tobacco, alcohol, gambling, and the like—have been considered legitimate regulatory targets for millennia, a tradition into which both Founding-era and modern America comfortably fits. Expressive products—newspapers, books, movies, and video games—on the other hand, have been considered essentially immune from content-based regulation, thanks to the First Amendment. But what if the content of an expressive product makes it addictive? Which tradition must give in: the ancient ability of legislatures to protect society at large from the wide-ranging impacts of addiction, or the legal shield that has generated a thriving culture of artistic independence? This Article is the first to explore the question of how the First Amendment should treat intentionally addictive speech. Social scientists indicate that certain behavioral addictions premised on compulsive use of expressive products—in particular, video games and pornography—are real dysfunctions of the brain, explainable in part by the intentional choices of developers and producers to create addictive products. And regulators are beginning to unsteadily lurch into action, without any evidence that they are taking the First Amendment into account. This Article proposes that, under current doctrine, any such regulation would need to satisfy strict scrutiny. It then argues for a departure and a recognition that intentionally addictive expression does not merit First Amendment coverage.

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

4 citations

Book
01 Jan 1963

2 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

1 citations

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Joseph Blocher1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors explore the relationship between nonsense and the freedom of speech and suggest ways to determine what "meaning" means for First Amendment purposes, and argue that exploring nonsense can illuminate the meaning of meaning itself.
Abstract: A great deal of everyday expression is, strictly speaking, nonsense But courts and scholars have done little to consider whether or why such meaningless speech, like nonrepresentational art, falls within “the freedom of speech” If, as many suggest, meaning is what separates speech from sound and expression from conduct, then the constitutional case for nonsense is complicated And because nonsense is so common, the case is also important — artists like Lewis Carroll and Jackson Pollock are not the only putative “speakers” who should be concerned about the outcomeThis Article is the first to explore thoroughly the relationship between nonsense and the freedom of speech; in doing so, it suggests ways to determine what “meaning” means for First Amendment purposes The Article begins by demonstrating the scope and constitutional salience of meaningless speech, showing that nonsense is multifarious, widespread, and sometimes intertwined with traditional First Amendment values like autonomy, the marketplace of ideas, and democracy The second part of the Article argues that exploring nonsense can illuminate the meaning of meaning itself This, too, is an important task, for although free speech discourse often relies on the concept of meaning to chart the Amendment’s scope, courts and scholars have done relatively little to establish what it entails Analytic philosophers, meanwhile, have spent the past century doing little else Their efforts — echoes of which can already be heard in First Amendment doctrine — suggest that free speech doctrine is best served by finding meaning in the way words are used, rather than in their relationship to extra-linguistic concepts

4 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

4 citations

Book
01 Jan 1963

2 citations

Journal ArticleDOI

1 citations