Defamation, Libel Tourism and the SPEECH Act of 2010: The First Amendment Colliding with the Common Law
Powered By Xquantum

Defamation, Libel Tourism and the SPEECH Act of 2010: The First ...

Read
image Next
14. Democracy and self-government are used interchangeably as they are similarly used by free speech theorists.
15. Frederick Schauer, Free Speech: a Philosophical Enquiry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 15.
16. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (London: Folio Society, 2008; originally printed in 1859). See Murray Dry, Civil Peace and the Quest for Truth (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2004), 133–142.
17. C. Edwin Baker, “Scope of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech”, University of California Law Review 25 (1977–1978): 964.
18. Ibid.
19. Douglas Fraleigh and Joseph Tuman, Freedom of Speech in the Marketplace of Ideas (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 13–15; Wojciech Sadurski, Freedom of Speech and Its Limits (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999), 8.
20. H. L. Pohlman, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: Free Speech and the Living Constitution (New York: New York University Press, 1991), 10.
21. Abrams v. US, 250 U.S. 616, 630–631 (1919).
22. Anthony Lewis, Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment (New York: Vintage Books, 1992), 81.
23. Abrams v. US, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919).
24. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
25. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
26. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).
27. Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and its Relation to Self-Government (Clark, NJ: Lawbook Exchange Ltd., 2008; originally printed in 1948). There are a number of scholars who still adhere to this limited application of First Amendment free speech theory. See Cynthia Estlund, “Speech on Matters of Public Concern: The Perils of an Emerging First Amendment Theory”, George Washington Law Review 59 (1990): 1 footnote 12.
28. Richard Moon, The Constitutional Protection of Freedom of Expression (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000), 27.
29. Schauer, Free Speech: a Philosophical Enquiry, 37.
30. Paul Mitchell, “Malice in Qualified Privilege”, Public Law (1999): 336. Dr. Mitchell’s summary of Meiklejohn demonstrates the extent to which Meiklejohn was influenced by James Madison, who made similar points when explaining why freedom of speech was more important in the United States than in eighteenth-century England.
31. Alexander Meiklejohn, “The First Amendment is an Absolute”, Supreme Court Review 245 (1961): 256–257.