An interesting article tackles the difficult and topical subject of free speech protection and the speaker’s intention.
First Amendment precedents can be confusing, non-linear, and seemingly not based upon common sense. Professor Eugene Volokh in “The Freedom of Speech and Bad Purposes” scrutinizes whether a speaker’s improper purpose can actually lose protection for speech. Using a wide spectrum of examples, from both the civil and criminal contexts, Professor Volokh concludes “the protection of speech should not turn on what a factfinder concludes about the speaker’s purposes.”
For those that may not be as familiar with the particularities and seeming contradictions of First Amendment jurisprudence, Professor Volokh is undertaking a Herculean effort to try to strip the inconsistencies away and create a more unified theory. This would make free speech protections more understandable to the common man is a admirable task.1 If individuals cannot understand the principles of the First Amendment, how can they use it in their daily life?
This article deals with the mental state of the speaker. Arguably there are two different types of mental states that can be used in the free speech context: knowledge and intent.
[A] speaker’s motivation is entirely irrelevant to the question of constitutional protection.
Latest posts by Joseph Thomas (see all)
- Free Speech Protection and Speaker’s Intent - July 31, 2016
- Professional Speech Doctrine - February 21, 2016
- Neutral Pharmacy Rules Upheld Over Religious Objections - February 3, 2016