Index

The phrase “used as example” which qualifies some subject headings in this index indicates that the topic was discussed to illustrate a point rather than being a discussion of the freedom of expression merits of the topic per se.

Aboodv.

advertising, 88, 90, 98, 100 advocacy-incitement distinctions, 75-7, 79,

81, 191

AhmedandOthersv. UnitedKingdom, 109

Albertson’s, Inc. v. Young, 120

Alien and Sedition Act, 74

Al Quaeda operatives (used as example), 77

Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local

590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 120 animal rights, 152, 155 anonymous speech, xii, 118-19 antidiscrimination laws, 46, 105-6, 115-18,

170

Arkansas Educ. Television Comm’n v. Forbes, 86, 98

Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 89

Arons, Stephen, 91

artistic speech, 137, 138, 141

association, freedom of, xii, 107-11, 115-18, 123, 147-8, 164-73 attorney/client communications. See confidentiality audiences: hostile, 23, 76, 112, 113; responsibility of, 77-9, 80; rights of, 8-9. See also Principles 3, 4, and 5

authors, dead (used as example), 8, 10 autonomy, xii, 130-2, 133; balancing/ weighing tests and, 131; evaluation of information and, 35, 74, 80; liberalism and, 175-6; Principle 5 and, 176;

public discourse and, 143; Strauss on, 68, 70

A v. Germany, 108

Bailey v. Alabama, 167

Baker, Edwin, 58

Bakke, Allan, 44

balancing/weighing tests, 20-37, 57-9, 61, 66, 106, 131, 188

Barfod v. Denmark, 69

Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 60

Barnette, West Virginia State Board of Education v., 11, 28, 91, 97

Barry, Brian, 173

Bartinicki v. Vopper, 58

Batchelder v. Allied Stores Int’l, Inc., 120 belief, freedom of, 107-11, 123 Benzanson, Randall P, 91

Berlin, Isaiah, 173

Berman, Mitchell N., 84

Board of Directors of Rotary Int’l v.

Board of Educ., Island Trees Union Free Sch. Dist. v. Pico, 89

Board of Educ. of Kiryas Joel Village Sch.

Dist. v. Grumet, 167

Board of Educ. v. Pico, 9, 15

Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin v. Southworth, 102

Bobo v. Spain, 106

bomb building (used as example), 76

Bonneville v. Frazier, 69

Boos v. Barry, 19

Borkv. WestminsterMall Co., 120

Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 115-18, 170 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 66, 69, 70, 75, 76-7,

107

Branti v. Finkel, 109

Brink, David, 72-3

broadcasting, xii, 19, 21, 74, 113-15, 123

Brown v. Hartlage, 69

Brown v. Socialist Workers, 118

Buchanan, Allen, 3, 6

Buckley v. Valeo, 35

Burson v. Freeman, 85

Buss, William G., 91

Butler v. Southam, Inc., 69

C, Re (German court case), 58

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 117 campaigns. See election campaigns

Carey v. Brown, 35, 86, 93-4 cartoons, satirical, 143

Case of Appleby and Others v. The United Kingdom, 120

Chamberlain v. Surrey Sch. Dist. No. 36, 89

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 76 Christiano, Thomas, 144

City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 19

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 110

City of Montreal v. Buczynsky, 19

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, 60

Clark v. Community for Creative

Non-Violence, 23

Cohen v. California, 16, 59, 115

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 59, 65 Coles Book Stores Ltd. v. Ontario, 19 collective action problems, 26 commercial speech, 138, 140, 141-2 Committee for the Commonwealth of

Canada v. Canada, 14, 19

Communist Party, 108-9

“compelling interest” arguments, 61 Conant v. Walters, 78

Condon v. Prince Edward Island, 109 confidentiality: attorney/client (for example) relationships and, 56, 57, 140; contract law and, 65; liberalism and, 174; public discourse and, 143; Rubenfeld on, 61; Schauer on, 81; speaking the truth and, 135; Track One laws and, 189-90 congestion, regulation of (used as example), 17

Connick v.

Connolly v. Comm’n of the European Communities, 106

Conrad, Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v., 86, 87, 89

consequentialist theories, xii, 6, 127-34, 185

content-neutral regulations, 18, 19, 20, 35, 39, 82

content regulations: balancing/weighing of, 20-37, 57-9,61,66, 106, 131; broadcasting and, 114-15; categories of speech and, 29, 95-6, 141-2; “compelling interest” arguments and, 61; direct harms and, 56-66, 80, 135, 174,

189- 90; speech-specific laws as, 19, 113; time/place/manner and, 35; two-step harms and, xii, 66-81, 111, 135, 175,

190- 2. See also Track One laws

contract law, 17, 56, 59, 61, 65, 189 copyright. See intellectual property Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ.

Fund, Inc., 14

Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 117 cosmopolitanism, 165, 169-70, 171

Costco Companies, Inc. v. Gallant, 120 counter-speech, 75, 76, 79

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 58 crimes, incitement/solicitation of, 67-70,

75,77, 135, 143, 175, 191 criminal laws, 17 cross burnings, 85, 94 Curtis Pub. Co. v. Butts, 69, 107

Daggett v. Comm’n on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, 88

Dandridge v. Williams, 43

Day v. Holahan, 88 deceptive speech, 67, 68-70, 119, 143, 175,

191

defamatory speech, 67, 68-70, 105, 107, 175. See also libel

democracy, 136-45, 186; associations and, 117; human rights limited to, 5, 144-5; informed citizenry and, 136-9; public discourse theory and, 136, 139-44; Track Three laws and, 101; virtues and, 132 demonstrations. See protests and

demonstrations

deontological theories, xii, 6, 134-5,

185

DiGuida, People v., 120 discrimination: antidiscrimination laws and,

46, 105-6, 115-18, 170; employment,

70, 117; private prejudices and, 109-10; religious, 117; sexual, 105-6, 115-18; subject matter, 93-8; viewpoint, 14-15, 25, 93-8

distortion, of messages, 98-9 Douglas v. Hello!, 58 draft card burning (used as example), 16,

17, 23 drug use, 75 Due Process clauses, 45 Dworkin, Ronald, 152, 154, 155, 173

economic theory, 24-6 education, public, 21, 33, 89-90, 94, 97,

103

election campaigns: advertising and, 88, 98; candidates’ debates and, 98; public financing of, 21, 33, 35, 74

Elrod v.

Ely, John, 42 embarrassing personal facts, 56, 57, 81, 135, 174

emotional distress, infliction of, 56, 58, 105, 174

employees, government, xii, 103-11,

123

employment discrimination, 70, 117 “epistemic abstinence,” xii, 147 Equal Protection Clause, 45, 121 Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 60

Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 115 Estes v. Kapiolani Women’s and Children’s

Med. Center, 120

European Convention on Human Rights, 116, 148

evaluative neutrality: autonomy and, 131; balancing/weighing and, 28; as core of freedom of expression, 11-12, 148, 175, 176-81, 185; democracy and, 139; direct harms and, 61, 66, 174; “fair use” and, 62; freedom of association and, 148; freedom of religion and, 148, 149; government employee speech and, 106-7; inconsistency in application of, 86; liberalism and, 148-9, 165-9, 171, 174; “matters of public concern” and, 105; normative theory and, xii, 176-81, 185; Principle 4 and, 35-7; Principle 5 and, 147; Track One laws and, 101, 106-7, 190; Track Two laws and, 20-1, 28, 112, 188; Track Three laws and, 85, 91,97, 101

evidence, admissibility of, 56 expressivist harms, 41 Express Newspapers v. Keys, 69

F. C. C. v. League of Women Voters, 84, 87 F C. C. v. Pacifica Found., 59, 115 fact-opinion distinctions, 70-1, 72-3, 75, 79, 135, 191

fact-value distinctions, 70, 71-5, 79, 135, 191

“fair use,” 62, 107

false assertions-beliefs distinctions, 77-9 Faurisson v. France, 69 feebleminded persons, 3 Feiner v. New York, 76, 112 fighting words, 76, 85, 105, 175, 191 Finnerty, Kevin, 92

Fish, Stanley, 79, 148, 164, 178-80

Fiss, Owen, 29-31, 138, 143 flag burning (used as example), 16, 38-9,

41,42,45,46,47-8, 49

The Florida Star v. B. J. F, 58

FourteenthAmendment, 42, 121

Fraser v. Canada, 106

Frieson v. Hammell, 69

Frisby v. Schultz, 19

gag orders, 56 gambling, 75 genetically-engineered foods, 74, 138,

140

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 69, 107 Glasenapp v. Germany, 108

Goduto, People v., 120

Golden Gateway Center v.

Tenants Ass’n, 120

Golove, David, 3, 6

Good News Club v. Milford Central Sch.,

94-5, 97, 141

governments: distrust of, 145; as duty-bearer, 7; employees of, xii, 103-11, 123; evaluative neutrality and, 11-12, 28, 33, 85, 86, 91, 97, 105; libeling of, 74;

means of expression and, 4, 7; optionality and, 40, 42-3, 44-6, 48, 50-1; regulatory purposes of, xi, 9-11, 13, 38-41, 45-6, 48-51, 55; speech by, xii, 89-91, 99, 101-2; subsidies granted by, xii, 22-3, 33, 35, 37, 87-9, 95-9, 101-2

Gray, John, 172-3

Greenawalt, Kent, 77, 152-3

Green Party v. Hartz Mountain Indus., Inc., 120

Greer v. Spock, 86

Groppera Radio AG v. Switzerland,

114

group homes, 109

group intentionality, 40

Habermas, Jiirgen, 29-31, 160

Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation

Enters., 60, 107

Harris v. McRae, 113

hate speech, 58-9, 110, 143

Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 15 Herceg v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 77 Hill v. Colorado, 19

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 42 hostile audiences, 23, 76, 112, 113

Hudgens v. NLRB, 14, 120

human rights, 3-7, 48-51, 111, 144-5, 185, 193

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 79, 116, 170

ideal speech situations, 158 incitement. See advocacy-incitement distinctions; crimes, incitement/ solicitation of

income inequality, 17, 73

indirect consequentialist theories, 186,

187-8, 189-90, 193

information effects: evaluative neutrality and, 28, 33; ignorance of, 20, 24-7, 57; knowledge of, 20, 24, 26-32, 57; public goods problem and, 25-6

Informationsverein Lentia v. Austria, 102 “innocent instrumentality” scenarios, 78 insane/deranged persons, 3, 67, 81 intellectual property: liberalism and, 174;

limits on, 190; Principle 5 and, 62-5; public discourse and, 143; speaking the truth and, 135; violation of, as direct harm, 56, 58, 107, 189

intentionality, 40, 76

International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, 4-5, 116

International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.

interracial adoptions, 109 irresponsible actors, 67, 81, 135

Islamic Unity Convention v. Independent

Broadcasting Auth. and Others, 69

Jackson, RobertH., 11, 175, 177

Jacobs, Leslie, 92

Jewish students, Orthodox, 170-2 “judgmental necessity” subsidies, 95, 96-8

Kamenshine, Robert, 91

Kellerv. State Bar of Calif., 102

Kessler, Daryl, 95-8

Kleindienst v. Mandel, 9

K Mart Canada Ltd. v. U.F.C.W., Local

1518, 19

Konigsberg v. State Bar, 108

Kosiek v. Germany, 108

Ku Klux Klan (used as example), 86

Lacey, State v., 120

Laguna Publ’g Co. v. Golden Rain Found., 120

Laguna Publ’g Co. v. Golden West Publ’g Co., 120

Lamb’s Chapel v. Moriches Union Free Sch.

Dist., 94-5, 97

Lamont v. Postmaster General, 9

Landmark Communications, Inc. v.

Virginia, 58

Lange v. Atkinson, 69

Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corp.,

69

Larmore, Charles, 152, 155

Leathers v. Medlock, 25

Lee, International Society for Krishna

Consciousness, Inc. v., 14, 23, 27, 29, 34, 35, 85

Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 86, 88, 89 legislative motivation, 45-6, 49

Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 86 Levinson, Nan, 192-3

Levy v. State of Victoria, 23

libel, 69, 74, 191

liberalism: autonomy and, 175-6; as cosmopolitanism, 165, 169-70, 171; evaluative neutrality and, 148-9, 165-9, 171, 174; illiberal groups and, 164-73; illiberal religions and, 149-64, 172; Principle 5 and, 174-5; Track Two laws and, 174 libertarianism, 31, 50, 63

liberty: of action, 185; harms and, 60, 72; human/moral rights and, 4, 6; Rawls on, 5; restriction of, 19, 82, 101-2; subsidies and, 101-2

libraries, 89-90, 95 litter, regulation of, 20, 22 Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 120 Lochner v. New York, 42 Locke, John, 63, 177 lying, 70

Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc.,

19

Maher v. Roe, 113

Marshall, William, 161

Marsh v. Alabama, 14, 120, 167

Martin v. City of Struthers, 9

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 118 means of expression, 4, 7 media of expression, regulation of, 7-8, 19,

22-3, 59, 188

Melvin v. Reid, 57

Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 114 military secrets. See secrets

Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 70, 72 Mill, John Stuart, 72-3, 166, 173, 175,

192

“Millian Principle,” 68, 177

Minister of Foreign Affairs v. Magno, 19

Ministry of Attorney-General, Corrections

Branch & British Columbia Government

Employees’ Union, Re, 106 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v.

Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 19, 25

Minnesota State Bd. for Community

Colleges v. Knight, 15, 86 minors, 3 misrepresentations. See deceptive speech moral rights, 3-7, 12, 111

Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 39

N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 118

N. E. A. v. Finley, 87

Nafria v. Spain, 106

Nagel, Thomas, 152, 155-7, 160-1

National Ass’nfor the Advancement of Psychoanalysts v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 69

National Endowments for the

Arts/Humanities, 96-8

National Enquirer stories (used as example), 77-8, 142 natural rights, 63

Neal, Patrick, 162

New Jersey Coalition Against the War in the

Middle East v. J. M. B. Realty Co., 120

New York State Club Ass’n, Inc. v. City of

New York, 116

New York Times Co. v. United States, 130

New York Times v. Sullivan, 69, 107 noise, regulation of (used as example), 10,

17, 83 nonappropriation theory, 134 normative theories, comprehensive, xii,

31-2, 33, 50, 176-81

Nozick, Robert, 43, 173

Obligations of Contracts Clause, 44 O’Brien, United States v., 15, 22-3 offensive speech, 56, 58-9, 115, 189, 190 O’Hare TruckServ., Inc. v. City of

Northlake, 109

OliviaN. v. NatT Broadcasting Co., 77 Ontario Attorney Gen. v. Dieleman, 19 Ontario Public Serv. Employees Union v.

TheNatT Citizens’ Coalition, Inc., 61 opinions. See fact-opinion distinctions optionality, 40, 50-1; legislative motivation

and, 45-6; rules and, 42-3; switching and, 44-5, 48

Osborne v. Canada, 109 “owned” content (used as example), 56

P. G. A. Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 118 Palmore v. Sidoti, 109 pamphleteering, 19, 22, 35 partisanship, 33, 109, 147, 172 patronage, political, 109

Peel Bd. of Educ. v. O. S. S.T. F., 108 Pentagon Papers case, 130 People v. DiGuida, 120

People v. Goduto, 120

People v. Sterling, 120 permissibility, moral, 40, 41-2, 46

Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 14, 86

Personnel Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 46 “Persuasion Principle,” 68 physician/patient communications. See confidentiality

Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 104

picketing. See protests and demonstrations Planned Parenthood v. Am. Coalition of Life

Activists, 65

poisoning of water supplies (used as example), 77

Police Dept. v. Mosley, 35, 86, 93-4 political association, right of, 117 political correctness, 171 political speech, 28-9, 69, 137-8, 140, 141-2

Posner, Richard, 36-7, 72, 180

Post, Robert, 128-41, 143-4

Post, Robert C., 31 preemptive actions, 111 prejudices, private, 109-10 priest/penitent communications. See confidentiality

Principle 1 (suppression of expressive conduct), 9-10, 55

Principle 2 (suppression of conduct intended to communicate a message), 9-10, 55

Principle 3 (audience prevented from receiving a message), 9, 10-11, 55

Principle 4 (suppression of conduct intended to communicate a message that results in audience being prevented from receiving it), 9, 11, 13, 35-7, 55, 139

Principle 5 (suppression of conduct for the purpose of preventing audience reception of a message), 9, 11, 13, 80-1; autonomy and, 176; direct harms and, 56-66, 80, 174; evaluative neutrality and, 147; government purpose and, 38, 55, 60-1, 147; intellectual property law and, 62-5; liberalism and, 174-5; message effects and, 48, 120-1; private regulation of

speech and, 119; Rubenfeld on, 36, 61; satirical cartoons and, 143; Track One laws and, 37, 39; Track Two laws and, 31, 147; two-step harms and, 67, 80-1, 175 privacy, 118-19; Rubenfeld on, 61, 65;

Track One laws and, 190; Track Two laws and, 17, 119; violation of, as direct harm, 56, 57, 189

private regulation of speech, xii, 105-6, 119-23

professional speech, 98-9, 138, 140-1 Progressive, Inc., United States v., 77 ProLife Alliance v. British Broadcasting

Co., 115

property law, 17

Proposition 209 (Calif.), 46 protests and demonstrations, 16, 19, 20, 35,

93

publication of dangerous information, 76-7, 175, 191

“public concern” exceptions, 104, 105, 106 public confidence, damage to, 104 public discourse theory, 136, 139-44 public fora, 14-16, 33, 35, 86-7, 92-3 public goods problems, 25-6 publicness of speech, 77, 79, 141

R. A. K v. City of St. Paul, 85, 94, 97

R. v. Lucas, 69

racial discrimination, 105-6

Ramsden v. Peterborough, 21 Rankin v. McPherson, 104

Rawls, John, 5, 43, 152, 155, 161, 173 Rawlsianism, 31-2, 50

Raz, Joseph, 173, 176 reading, 10 reasonable rejectability, 149-50, 156-62 recklessness, 50

Redish, Martin, 92, 95-8

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. F. C. C.,

114

Reform Party of Canada v. Attorney Gen. of

Canada, 98

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of

Washington, 89

Regents of the Univ. of Calif. at Davis v.

Bakke, 44

Regina v. Lewis, 19

Regina v. Richards, 19 regulatory laws, 17 relationship-damaging speech, 104-6,

110

religion, freedom of, xii, 147-8, 149-64,

172

religious discrimination, 117

religious speech, 141-2

research grants/subsidies, 21, 33 resource allocation decisions, 23, 75,

112-13, 123

Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd., 69

Rice v. Paladin Enters., 77

Robel, UnitedStatesv., 108

Roberts v. U. S. Jaycees, 116, 167 Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center,

120

Roe v. Wade, 113

Rosen, Mark, 167

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the

Univ, of Va., 15, 89, 94-5, 97, 138, 141 Ross v. New Brunswick Sch. Dist. No. 15,

109

Rubenfeld, Jed, 27-8, 36-7, 39, 61-5, 72 Rust v. Sullivan, 87-8

Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 109

S. O. S., Inc. v. Mirage Casino-Hotel, 120 Sable Communications of Calif. v. F. C. C.,

59

Sam Andrews’ Sons v. Agric. Labor

Relations Bd., 120

Scalia, Antonin, 94, 95, 118

Scanlon, Thomas, 68-70, 78, 80, 81, 134-5, 175, 177

Schauer, Frederick, 80, 81, 91, 137

Schmid, State v., 120

Schneider v. State, 19, 21-2, 29, 35 schools and universities. See education, public

scientific speech, 137, 138, 140, 141 secrets: contract law and, 65; disclosure of,

as direct harm, 56; liberalism and, 174; public discourse and, 143; Rubenfeld on, 61; Schauer on, 81; speaking the truth and, 135; Track One laws and, 189, 190

Sedition Act (1798), 74

senile persons, 3 sexual discrimination, 105-6, 115-18 Shapiro, Scott, 144

Shelley v. Kraemer, 121-2, 167

Shiffrin, Steven, 92

Sidis v. F-R Publ’g Corp., 57 significant government interest test, 15-16,

18-19

Simon Fraser University andAss’n of Univ.

& College Employees, Re, 106

Smith, Steven, 129-32, 177

Smith v. Daily Mail Publ’g Co., 58

Snepp v. United States, 65 Southeastern Promotions Ltd. v. Conrad,

86, 87, 89, 93

speakers: discrimination against certain,

93-8; preferential treatment of, 86, 114; protection of, xii, 23, 111-13, 123; responsibility of, 77-8; rights of, 8-9; subsidies for, 98

speech, freedom of, 7-8 speech-acts, 79

Speiser v. Randall, 84

Spencer, Herbert, 42-3

Spragens, Thomas, Jr., 154 standing, 44

Stanley v. Georgia, 9

State v. Lacey, 120

State v. Schmid, 120

State v. Wicklund, 120

Sterling, People v., 120

Stevens, John Paul, 94

Stolzenberg, Nomi, 171-2

Stranahan v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 120 Strauss, David, 68-70, 75, 78, 79, 80, 81,

134-5, 175

subject matter discrimination, 93-8 subsidies, xii, 22-3, 35; liberty and, 101-2;

of media, 35; message distortion and, 98-9; research grants and, 21, 33; Rubenfeld on, 37; for speakers, 98; of subject matter, 95-8; Track Three laws and, 87-9, 95-8. See also public goods problems

Sunstein, Cass, 18, 138, 143

swimming pool segregation (used as example), 41-2, 45

symbolic speech, 8, 14, 15-16

Takings Clause, 44

Talley v. California, 118

Tashjian v. RepublicanParty, 117 tax law, 17, 18

Taylor v. Georgia, 167 Terry v. Adams, 117, 118 Texas v. Johnson, 16, 41 threats, 56, 65 time, effects over, 41-2, 47-8 Time, Inc. v. Bernard Geis Assocs., 58 time, place, and manner tests, 15-16, 35, 85

tolerance, 132-3

Toronto v. Quickfall, 21 tort law, 17

Track One laws, xi-xii, 82, 83-4; broadcasting and, 114; confidentiality and, 189-90; direct harms and, 56-66, 80, 135, 174, 189-90; evaluative neutrality and, 101, 106-7, 190; government employee speech and, 106-7, 111, 123; hostile audiences and, 113; indirect-consequentialist theories and, 189-90; liberty, restriction of, and, 82, 101-2; nonappropriation theory and, 134; Principle 5 and, 13-14, 37, 39; privacy and, 190; public discourse and, 139, 141; secrets and, 189, 190; two-step harms and, xii, 66-81, 111, 135, 175, 190-2 Track Two laws, xi, 13-37, 82, 187-9;

balancing/weighing and, 20-37, 57-9, 61, 66, 188; broadcasting and, 113-14, 123; content categories and, 142; courts and, 33, 35; evaluative neutrality and, 20-1, 28, 112, 188; freedom of association and, 116, 118, 123; governmental purpose and, 39; indirect-consequentialist theories and, 187-8; legislation and, 33-5; liberalism and, 174; liberty, restriction of, and, 82; message effects and, xi, 17-18, 23-4, 48, 120; nonappropriation theory and, 134; normative theories and, 31-2, 33, 50; Principle 4 and, 11, 13; Principle 5 and, 147; privacy and, 17, 119;

private regulation of speech and, 120-2, 123; public discourse and, 139, 141; public fora and, 14-16, 33; public goods problems and, 26-7; resource allocation decisions and, 23, 112-13, 123; symbolic speech cases and, 14, 15-16; tests applied to, 15-16, 18-19; ubiquity of, 13-19; as violation of freedom of expression, 33

Track Three laws, xii, 82-102, 113; approaches to, 91-9; broadcasting and, 114-15; comparisons of, 84-91; content categories and, 142; democracy and, 101; evaluative neutrality and, 85, 91, 97, 101; liberty, restriction of, and, 82, 101-2; subsidies and, 87-9, 95-8; varieties of, 82-3

trade secrets. See secrets

traffic laws. See congestion, regulation of traumatic content (used as example), 56, 58 Tribe, Laurence, 11, 13, 82 truth, xii, 73, 128-30, 133, 135

United States Civil Serv. Comm’n v. Nat’l

Ass’n of Letter Carriers, 109 United States v. O’Brien, 15, 22-3 United States v. Progressive, Inc., 77 United States v. Robel, 108 Universal Declaration of Human Rights,

4-5,116 utilitarianism, 31-2, 50, 173 value-pluralism, 172-3

values. See fact-value distinctions

Vancouver v. Jaminer, 19 viewpoint discrimination, 14-15, 25, 93-8

Virginia v. Black, 66, 85 virtue, xii, 132-3

Vogt v. Germany, 108

Waldron, Jeremy, 144

Walzer, Michael, 158

Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 14

Washington v. David, 46

Wasserman, Howard, 92

Waters v. Churchill, 104

Wayte v. United States, 39, 46

Weinstein, James, 139, 140-1 welfare grants (used as example), 43

Wenz, Peter, 153

West Virginia State Board of Education v.

Barnette, 11, 28, 91, 97, 177

Wicklund, State v., 120

Widmar v. Vincent, 15, 35

Williams, Susan, 16, 17-18

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 168

work relationships. See relationship-damaging speech

Yale University, 170-2

Young v. American Mini-Theatres, 60 Yudof, Mark, 91

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting

Co., 58

Ziegler, Edward, 92