From: "Carl M. Kadie"Smolla, Rodney A. Free speech in an open society / by Rodney A. Smolla. 1st ed. New York : Knopf : Distributed by Random House, 1992. xii, 429 p. ; 25 cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. 369-414) and index. ISBN 0679407278 : $$27.50 ($$34.50 Can.) 1. Freedom of speech--United States. 2. Freedom of speech I. Title. ocm23-768570 Minireview: One-line: New, up to date, and has lots of references to relevant court cases. Says that history doesn't provide a comprehensive theory of free speech, that mere balancing of competing interest is not enough. Gives six suggested rules for speech rules in the general marketplace of ideas: 1. Neutrality - Government may not "pick and choose" among ideas, but must always be viewpoint-neutral" 2. Emotion - Speech does not forfeit the protection that it would otherwise enjoy merely because it is laced with apssion or vulgairty. 3. Symbolism - The First Amendment includes all expressive conduct 4. Harm -- physical (e.g. solicitation of murder or arson), relational (e.g. libel, false advertising, copyright infringement, unauthorized revelation of perivate personal information) reactive harm (e.g. infliction of emotional distress, obscenity) The government has the strongest case for regulating "physical". A strong, but not as strong, for regulating "relational". No good case for regulating "reactive". 5. Causation - speech is required to be in a close causal nexus with harm before it can be penalized 6. Precision - prohibitons must be the least restrive means and must very clear. Includes chapters on hate speech -- "In a just soceity, reason and tolerance must triumph over prejudice and hate. But that triump is best achived thought education, no coerecion. Tolerance shouild be a dominant voice in the markeplace of ideas, but it should not preempt that marketplace." public funding of the arts, education, and other forms of public speech -- says that restrictions should be nerutral, precise, relevent, etc. political speech -- "Limits on politicla contributions and the public financing of elections are reforms that do not offend the First Amendment. But limit on expenditure do. The Noriega Tapes and the Gulf War New Technologies -- e.g. TV, cable -- indecent or obscene material should not be regulated at all because it is "immoral". Any regulations should be aimed only at protecting childern and "captive" adult audiences. Toward an International Marketplace of ideas Score: 9 of 10 - Carl