FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W184348045> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W184348045 abstract "The article argues that the Supreme Court's contemporary treatment of First Amendment overbreadth law inadequately accounts for what ought to be one of that doctrine's primary functions, surfacing illicit government purposes underlying regulations that affect expression. It examines current understandings of overbreadth law through the lens of the Supreme Court's recent decision addressing Colorado's bubble law, Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000), and the broader debate about the constitutionality of statutory speech bubbles. The article begins by examining how the structure of First Amendment doctrine exerts enormous pressure on lawmakers to draft laws broadly. Examining the political process that led to the enactment of the Colorado bubble law, it argues that this pressure was manifest in the lawmakers' decisionmaking. While conventional wisdom suggests that the political process will act as a natural check on statutory breadth, that may not work where the legislature intentionally drafts a speech law broadly to avoid accusations of viewpoint and content discrimination, but simultaneously directs the public's attention only to the narrower social problem it seeks to advance. In other words, the bubble law's supporters had it both ways, in defending the law during the political process, they did not have to respond to claims by speakers other than abortion protestors, but when the law was subject to judicial review, they hid behind the law's formal neutrality. Next, the article argues that statutory speech bubbles ought to be viewed as facially overbroad and assert that insufficient attention to such laws' lack of precision leaves room for lawmakers to escape meaningful First Amendment review by intentionally drafting laws broadly. While the original understanding of overbreadth might have checked that tendency, the doctrine has come to mean something very different. In Hill, for example, the Court upheld the bubble law against an overbreadth challenge precisely because it regulated broadly. My article examines how this result was made possible by the gradual transformation of overbreadth law from a doctrine that guarantees legislative precision to a doctrine that focuses on equal treatment and on principles of procedural standing, and by the fact that the doctrine's justification rests on speaker- or audience-based free speech theories. Finally, the article asserts that the contemporary understanding of overbreadth ought to reflect the doctrine's precision-promoting functions and that those functions in turn serve as a doctrinal means of smoking out illicit government motives. Connecting my thesis to the recent work of scholars who have examined the First Amendment's place in checking improper government purposes, the article maintains that reviving overbreadth's precision requirement will place it more centrally into the larger framework of First Amendment law. The article concludes by exploring how overbreadth could counteract the incentives to obscure illicit legislative motive and then address some potential critiques of this proposed approach." @default.
• W184348045 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W184348045 creator A5039695824 @default.
• W184348045 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W184348045 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W184348045 title "Statutory Speech Bubbles, First Amendment Overbreadth, and Improper Legislative Purpose" @default.
• W184348045 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.387080" @default.
• W184348045 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W184348045 type Work @default.
• W184348045 sameAs 184348045 @default.
• W184348045 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W184348045 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W184348045 hasAuthorship W184348045A5039695824 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C158129432 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W184348045 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C158129432 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C17744445 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C18650270 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C199539241 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C2776211767 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C2776512386 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C2778272461 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C83009810 @default.
• W184348045 hasConceptScore W184348045C94625758 @default.
• W184348045 hasLocation W1843480451 @default.
• W184348045 hasOpenAccess W184348045 @default.
• W184348045 hasPrimaryLocation W1843480451 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W1524235944 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W1566304023 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W1577187159 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W193797672 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W2071259433 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W280166504 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W2889909037 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W3121989755 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W3123013090 @default.
• W184348045 hasRelatedWork W2115706686 @default.
• W184348045 isParatext "false" @default.
• W184348045 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W184348045 magId "184348045" @default.
• W184348045 workType "article" @default.