Copyright (c) 2011 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman Recent documents in Steven J. Heyman en-us Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:53:11 PST 3600 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/30 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/30 Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:22:57 PDT Steven J. Heyman Jurisprudence First Amendment http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/29 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/29 Mon, 13 Sep 2010 17:41:48 PDT Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to undermine these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes the positive values promoted by free speech, and a darker vision that is rooted in the jurisprudence of Justice Holmes. Holmes understands free speech as part of a struggle for power between different social groups -- a struggle that ultimately can be resolved only by force. After sketching the liberal humanist view, I trace the development of Holmes’s position, which is grounded in his Darwinian understanding of human life and in his deeper view that all phenomena in the universe are governed by force. Next, I evaluate the Holmesian approach and discuss its implications for a wide range of contemporary issues, from hate speech and pornography to the Citizens United decision on electoral advertising by corporations. I conclude that Holmes’s view does not provide an adequate rationale for free speech, and that it undermines the liberal humanist principles that should be regarded as central to the First Amendment.

]]> Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law Jurisprudence http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/28 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/28 Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:31:56 PDT Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to undermine these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes the positive values promoted by free speech, and a darker vision that is rooted in the jurisprudence of Justice Holmes. Holmes understands free speech as part of a struggle for power between different social groups -- a struggle that ultimately can be resolved only by force. After sketching the liberal humanist view, I trace the development of Holmes’s position, which is grounded in his Darwinian understanding of human life and in his deeper view that all phenomena in the universe are governed by force. Next, I evaluate the Holmesian approach and discuss its implications for a wide range of contemporary issues, from hate speech and pornography to the Citizens United decision on electoral advertising by corporations. I conclude that Holmes’s view does not provide an adequate rationale for free speech, and that it undermines the liberal humanist principles that should be regarded as central to the First Amendment.

]]> Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law Jurisprudence http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/27 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/27 Wed, 01 Sep 2010 11:12:45 PDT Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to undermine these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes the positive values promoted by free speech, and a darker vision that is rooted in the jurisprudence of Justice Holmes. Holmes understands free speech as part of a struggle for power between different social groups -- a struggle that ultimately can be resolved only by force. After sketching the liberal humanist view, I trace the development of Holmes’s position, which is grounded in his Darwinian understanding of human life and in his deeper view that all phenomena in the universe are governed by force. Next, I evaluate the Holmesian approach and discuss its implications for a wide range of contemporary issues, from hate speech and pornography to the Citizens United decision on electoral advertising by corporations. I conclude that Holmes’s view does not provide an adequate rationale for free speech, and that it undermines the liberal humanist principles that should be regarded as central to the First Amendment.

]]> Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law Jurisprudence http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/26 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/26 Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:59:41 PDT Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to injure these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where the Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition actually consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes the positive values promoted by free speech, and a darker vision that is rooted in the jurisprudence of Justice Holmes. Holmes understands free speech as part of a struggle for power between different social groups -- a struggle that ultimately can be resolved only by force. After sketching the liberal humanist view, I trace the development of Holmes’s position, which is grounded in his Darwinian understanding of human life and in his deeper view that all phenomena in the universe are governed by force. Next, I evaluate the Holmesian approach and discuss its implications for a wide range of contemporary issues, from hate speech and pornography to the Citizens United decision on electoral advertising by corporations. I conclude that Holmes’s view does not provide an adequate rationale for free speech, and that it undermines the liberal humanist values that should be regarded as central to the First Amendment.

]]> Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law Jurisprudence http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/25 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/25 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:37:52 PDT Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical in nature. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many decisions protect speech that appears to harm these values by attacking the dignity and personality of other people or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition actually consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes the positive values promoted by free speech, and a darker vision that is rooted in the jurisprudence of Justice Holmes. Holmes understands free speech as part of a struggle for power between different social groups -- a struggle that ultimately can be resolved only by force. After outlining the liberal humanist approach, I trace the development of Holmes’s position, which is grounded in his Darwinian view of life and in his deeper view that all phenomena in the universe are governed by force. Next, I evaluate the Holmesian approach to freedom of speech and discuss its implications for a wide range of contemporary issues, from hate speech and pornography to the Citizens United ruling on electoral spending by corporations. I conclude that Holmes’s view does not provide an adequate rationale for free speech and that it undermines the liberal humanist values that should be understood as central to the First Amendment.

]]> Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law Jurisprudence http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/24 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/24 Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:59:55 PDT Steven J. Heyman First Amendment http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/23 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/23 Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:40:22 PST Steven J. Heyman Courts http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/21 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/21 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:12:46 PST Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/20 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/20 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:11:12 PST Steven J. Heyman Torts http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/19 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/19 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:09:39 PST Steven J. Heyman Torts http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/18 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/18 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:08:14 PST Steven J. Heyman Torts http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/17 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/17 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:06:15 PST Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/16 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/16 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 12:04:49 PST Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/15 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/15 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:58:26 PST Steven J. Heyman Courts http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/14 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/14 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:57:48 PST Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/13 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/13 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:57:18 PST Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/12 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/12 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:56:52 PST Steven J. Heyman Jurisprudence http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/11 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/11 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:56:16 PST Steven J. Heyman Jurisprudence http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/10 http://works.bepress.com/steven_heyman/10 Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:55:44 PST Steven J. Heyman Constitutional Law