Coenen, D. T. (2017). Free Speech and the Law of Evidence. Duke Law Journal, University of Georgia School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 21. Available at SSRN Electronic Journal. Web.
This article’s central point is that protected speech should be utilized only as evidence in prosecuting a suspect when necessary. This article tries to explain occurrences where one’s utterances are used as evidence in a criminal case. This makes the article important as no one should be judged for expressing their opinion on something. The author also stated that the prosecution had utilized protected speech uttered by the defendant in the past as a piece of evidence because of the law of evidence. Although the author of this piece concerns the validity of such evidence, he also recommends the restrictions of utilizing the defendant’s free speech as evidence against him. This article is very important as it tries to show that there should be no restriction on freedom of speech, and as long as the defendant’s speech was an expression of their viewpoint, it should not be used as evidence in a criminal case.
Campbell, J. (2017). Natural Rights and the First Amendment. Yale LJ, 127, 246. Web.
This article contends that the elites of the founding era shared essential conceptual understandings of speech and press freedoms, even when they disagreed on how to apply those notions in practical situations. The author’s focus on the subject of the first amendment freedom of speech and press, the article explored how that definition has evolved through time. This is important as the article states that several court judgements, scholarly publications, and legislative legislation have weakened the constitutional drafters’ goal of freedom of speech and the press. One of the article’s main arguments was that the Founders of the Constitution designed the Bill of Rights as unchangeable inherent rights, but that public opinion has weakened these rights over time. According to the article, freedom of expression is defined as the right to have an opinion and express it, while freedom of the press is defined as the right to know what is going on in the world.
Coenen, D. T. (2017). Freedom of Speech and the Criminal Law. BUL Rev., 97, 1533. Web.
The article claims that since the Free Speech Clause restricts the government’s ability to establish punitive legislation, it is closely linked to the law of criminal procedure in the United States. This article examines such a link during a nationwide “decriminalization campaign.” The article’s main argument is on the supreme court’s utilization of free-speech legislation. This makes it important as the legislation can be used to set new significant constraints on speech prosecution. Furthermore, the court has devised three unique decision-making processes for decriminalizing speech based on constitutional considerations. The first is judicial blocking, which means ruling certain speech restrictions illegal, whether criminal or civil. The second includes judicial channeling, which means that government control of particular speech must shape civil law restrictions rather than criminal law restrictions. Third, judicial narrowing includes interpreting criminal legislation to limit their scope and so impede future government prosecutions. The article also analyzes the court’s future use of all three strategies to decriminalize expressive conduct.
Pettersson, K. (2019). “Freedom of speech requires actions”: Exploring the discourse of politicians convicted of hate speech against Muslims. European Journal of Social Psychology. Web.
This article investigates how politicians guilty of hate speech against Muslims explain their acts via remarks on their Facebook profiles and published interviews. Individuals may use their power or social status to express their freedom of speech wrongly. Misuse of these rights can undermine peace among people. Therefore, it is also important not to incorrectly use the freedom of speech guaranteed to us. The author investigates how politicians dialectically claim and reject different subject positions, thus building their hate speech from minor errors to acts of virtue. It does so from a critical discursive psychology viewpoint. The article also investigates the complex dynamics of these constructs. The article also adds to the argument on the limits between hate speech and freedom of expression. Therefore, expression and persuasion are allowed to criticize and develop each other, which adds to the borders between hate speech and free speech.
Zick, T. (2016). The Dynamic Relationship Between Freedom of Speech and Equality. Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y, 12, 13. Web.
This article addresses the dynamic interaction between freedom of expression and equal protection under the law, emphasizing the racial and LGBT equality movements. Like earlier works on expression and equality, the article highlights how freedom of speech and equal protection are intertwined. It has been important to the advancement of constitutional equality that free expression has been allowed. Race and LGBT equality were two areas where free speech rights failed to support equality demands and movements. Free speech theories, concepts, and rights have all been impacted by the advocacy and struggle for equal rights in good and bad ways. The link between freedom of expression and constitutional equality teaches us the importance of relying on free speech rights to achieve equality under the law. Furthermore, the article illustrates that freedom of expression connects with other forms of equality in various ways via a comparative examination.