Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1564489
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (241)



 


 



Government Speech 2.0


Helen L. Norton


University of Colorado School of Law

Danielle Keats Citron


University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Yale University - Yale Information Society Project; Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society

March 3, 2010

Denver University Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 899, 2010
U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-10
U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-12

Abstract:     
New expressive technologies continue to transform the ways in which members of the public speak to one another. Not surprisingly, emerging technologies have changed the ways in which government speaks as well. Despite substantial shifts in how the government and other parties actually communicate, however, the Supreme Court to date has developed its government speech doctrine – which recognizes “government speech” as a defense to First Amendment challenges by plaintiffs who claim that the government has impermissibly excluded their expression based on viewpoint – only in the context of disputes involving fairly traditional forms of expression. In none of these decisions, moreover, has the Court required government publicly to identify itself as the source of a contested message to satisfy the government speech defense to a First Amendment claim. The Court’s failure to condition the government speech defense on the message’s transparent identification as governmental is especially mystifying because the costs of such a requirement are so small when compared to its considerable benefits in ensuring that government remains politically accountable for its expressive choices.

This Article seeks to start a conversation about how courts – and the rest of us – might re-think our expectations about government speech in light of government’s increasing reliance on emerging technologies that have dramatically altered expression’s speed, audience, collaborative nature, and anonymity. It anticipates the next generation of government speech disputes in which certain associations and entanglements between government and private speakers complicate the government speech question. By adding to these challenges, government’s increasing use of newer technologies that vary in their interactivity and transparency may give the Court additional reason to re-examine its government speech jurisprudence. “Government Speech 2.0” thus refers not only to the next generation of government speech, but also to the possibility that government’s increasing reliance on emerging expressive technologies may help inspire the next generation of government speech doctrine: one more appropriately focused on ensuring government’s meaningful political accountability for its expressive choices.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 46

Keywords: First Amendment, government speech, constitutional law, cyberlaw

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: July 28, 2010 ; Last revised: July 29, 2010

Suggested Citation

Norton, Helen L. and Citron, Danielle Keats, Government Speech 2.0 (March 3, 2010). Denver University Law Review, Vol. 87, p. 899, 2010; U of Colorado Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-10; U of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-12. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1564489

Contact Information

Helen L. Norton (Contact Author)
University of Colorado School of Law ( email )
401 UCB
Boulder, CO 80309
United States

Danielle Keats Citron
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law ( email )
500 West Baltimore Street
Baltimore, MD 21201-1786
United States
Yale University - Yale Information Society Project
127 Wall Street
New Haven, CT 06511
United States
Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society
Palo Alto, CA
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,361
Downloads: 149
Download Rank: 118,612
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  241

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.594 seconds