2019Unpublished venueRequires access

First Amendment Law

G. Leslie Bernstein

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The US Supreme Court has said that, despite the “no law” words used in the First Amendment, government can pass some laws that curtail speech. In the first half of the twentieth century, the US Supreme Court did not consider films to be “speech” protected by the First Amendment. Ohio’s constitution, however, had a provision very similar to the US Constitution’s First Amendment and so film owners asked the US Supreme Court to rule that Ohio’s free speech guarantee prevented censorship. Books, plays, movies, television shows, video games, songs, new media productions, and other forms of entertainment are unquestionably “speech” protected by the First Amendment. Given this, government’s ability to censor or regulate entertainment is limited, which has allowed people who create entertainment to say pretty much anything they want. The entertainment industry has long understood that court decisions, even in an area as hallowed as the First Amendment, can be fragile things.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The US Supreme Court has said that, despite the “no law” words used in the First Amendment, government can pass some laws that curtail speech. In the first half of the twentieth century, the US Supreme Court did not consider films to be “speech” protected by the First Amendment. Ohio’s constitution, however, had a provision very similar to the US Constitution’s First Amendment and so film owners asked the US Supreme Court to rule that Ohio’s free speech guarantee prevented censorship. Books, plays, movies, television shows, video games, songs, new media productions, and other forms of entertainment are unquestionably “speech” protected by the First Amendment. Given this, government’s ability to censor or regulate entertainment is limited, which has allowed people who create entertainment to say pretty much anything they want. The entertainment industry has long understood that court decisions, even in an area as hallowed as the First Amendment, can be fragile things.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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

The US Supreme Court has said that, despite the “no law” words used in the First Amendment, government can pass some laws that curtail speech. In the first half of the twentieth century, the US Supreme Court did not consider films to be “speech” protected by the First Amendment. Ohio’s constitution, however, had a provision very similar to the US Constitution’s First Amendment and so film owners asked the US Supreme Court to rule that Ohio’s free speech guarantee prevented censorship. Books, plays, movies, television shows, video games, songs, new media productions, and other forms of entertainment are unquestionably “speech” protected by the First Amendment. Given this, government’s ability to censor or regulate entertainment is limited, which has allowed people who create entertainment to say pretty much anything they want. The entertainment industry has long understood that court decisions, even in an area as hallowed as the First Amendment, can be fragile things.

Key concepts: Amendment, Law, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
First Amendment Law — Research Paper | ScholarLens