Reply to Bender
dc.contributor.author | Post, Robert | |
dc.date | 2021-11-25T13:34:45.000 | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-11-26T11:46:04Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-11-26T11:46:04Z | |
dc.date.issued | 1997-01-01T00:00:00-08:00 | |
dc.identifier | fss_papers/4652 | |
dc.identifier.contextkey | 5327752 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13051/4166 | |
dc.description.abstract | Paul Bender has interesting and telling points to make, but a good many of them do not concern the paper I have actually published in this volume (or my work generally). Bender cogently argues, for example, that because democratic self-governance is not "the only reason for protecting speech in a democracy," "public discourse . . . is clearly not the entire realm of constitutionally protected free expression, nor should it be." I quite agree with Bender on this point, and I have never anywhere argued anything to the contrary. Indeed, I explicitly observe in my contribution to this volume that the theory of the "marketplace of ideas," which is limited to neither public discourse nor democracy, "does constitute a significant presence in First Amendment jurisprudence." The position that I actually defend is quite different from that attributed to me by Bender. It is that the value of democratic self-governance is the most powerful explanation of the general pattern of First Amendment decisions (and most particularly of its nationally idiosyncratic aspects), and that democratic self-governance is the only value that can convincingly account for the specific set of decisions protecting the abusive, outrageous and indecent speech that are of most concern in this Symposium. | |
dc.title | Reply to Bender | |
dc.source.journaltitle | Faculty Scholarship Series | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2021-11-26T11:46:04Z | |
dc.identifier.legacycoverpage | https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4652 | |
dc.identifier.legacyfulltext | https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5655&context=fss_papers&unstamped=1 |