The first amendment as a sword: The positive liberty doctrine and cable must‐carry provisions
Matthew D. Bunker, Charles N. Davis
Abstract
Matthew D. Bunker, Charles N. Davis
Abstract
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Congress’ 1992 must‐carry provisions. The divided Court's opinion was inconclusive, but the reasoning of the justices highlights a broader theme. That theme, the notion of positive liberty, suggests that the proper role for government under the First Amendment is to become an active regulator in order to advance certain social interests. This study analyzes how the concept of positive liberty affected the differing constitutional visions expressed by the justices.
OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of Congress’ 1992 must‐carry provisions. The divided Court's opinion was inconclusive, but the reasoning of the justices highlights a broader theme. That theme, the notion of positive liberty, suggests that the proper role for government under the First Amendment is to become an active regulator in order to advance certain social interests. This study analyzes how the concept of positive liberty affected the differing constitutional visions expressed by the justices.
Key concepts: Constitutionality, Supreme court, Law, Doctrine, Vision, SWORD, Political science, Theme (computing)