1984•Virginia Law ReviewRequires access

The Misleading Nature of Public Forum Analysis: Content and Context in First Amendment Adjudication

Daniel A. Farber, John E. Nowak

Open publisher page 8 citations

Abstract

of the Burger Court's first amendment decisions focus on the scope of governmental power to regulate speech based upon its content. 1 The Court has had little trouble with traditional content regulation cases that involve outright proscription of certain types of speech. 2 Similarly, it has had little trouble with traditional time, place, or manner regulations, which relate only to the physical context of speech and do not involve content regulation at all. 3 The Court has had a great deal of difficulty, however, with hybrid regulations involving governmental limitations on speech in a specific context.Such hybrid regulations relate to content, but they are limited to certain locations, media, or speakers.'Although the government may be pursuing some goal unrelated to the proscription of a message, these hybrid regulations often directly impair some people's ability to communicate a message in a certain *

About this research paper

What this paper is about

of the Burger Court's first amendment decisions focus on the scope of governmental power to regulate speech based upon its content. 1 The Court has had little trouble with traditional content regulation cases that involve outright proscription of certain types of speech. 2 Similarly, it has had little trouble with traditional time, place, or manner regulations, which relate only to the physical context of speech and do not involve content regulation at all. 3 The Court has had a great deal of difficulty, however, with hybrid regulations involving governmental limitations on speech in a specific context.Such hybrid regulations relate to content, but they are limited to certain locations, media, or speakers.'Although the government may be pursuing some goal unrelated to the proscription of a message, these hybrid regulations often directly impair some people's ability to communicate a message in a certain *

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

of the Burger Court's first amendment decisions focus on the scope of governmental power to regulate speech based upon its content. 1 The Court has had little trouble with traditional content regulation cases that involve outright proscription of certain types of speech. 2 Similarly, it has had little trouble with traditional time, place, or manner regulations, which relate only to the physical context of speech and do not involve content regulation at all. 3 The Court has had a great deal of difficulty, however, with hybrid regulations involving governmental limitations on speech in a specific context.Such hybrid regulations relate to content, but they are limited to certain locations, media, or speakers.'Although the government may be pursuing some goal unrelated to the proscription of a message, these hybrid regulations often directly impair some people's ability to communicate a message in a certain *

Key concepts: Adjudication, Context (archaeology), First amendment, Political science, Content (measure theory), Content analysis, Amendment, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Misleading Nature of Public Forum Analysis: Content and Context in First Amendment Adjudication — Research Paper | ScholarLens