Citations (1)


Footnotes (291)



Government Property and Government Speech

Joseph Blocher

Duke University - School of Law

August 4, 2010

William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 52, 2011

The relationship between property and speech is close but complicated. Speakers use places and things to deliver their messages, and rely on property rights both to protect expressive acts and to serve as an independent means of expression. And yet courts and scholars have struggled to make sense of the property-speech connection. Is property merely a means of expression, or can it be expressive in and of itself? And what kind of “property” do speakers need to have – physical things, bundles of rights, or something else entirely?

In the context of government property and government speech, the ill-defined relationship between property and speech creates a massive but underappreciated theoretical and doctrinal problem, that threatens the very existence of the public forum. The arc of First Amendment jurisprudence, particularly as manifested in public forum doctrine, has been towards limiting the government’s right to exclude unwanted private speakers. Government speech doctrine, however, effectively reinvigorates the government’s right to exclude unwanted speakers by transforming speech regulations into governmental expressive conduct, which under current government speech doctrine is entirely exempt from constitutional review. The government can therefore invoke not only its property rights, but the expressive nature of their exercise.

Something has to give. Either not all property is expressive, or else not all expressive uses of government property are government “speech” exempt from constitutional scrutiny. Part I of this Article explores the first of these propositions, arguing that the relationship between speech and property requires a more nuanced treatment than it has heretofore received, and that property – whether conceived of as a thing, a legal entitlement, or a social relationship – both enables and is expression. But, as Part II of the Article shows, that conclusion cannot easily be extended into the context of government property and government speech. In government property/government speech cases such as Town of Pleasant Grove v. Summum, the question should be whether the government has the right to exclude unwanted speakers, not whether the exercise of such a right (assuming the government has it) is expressive. And the best way to answer the correct question is by looking not to formal property rights, but to social understandings of property.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 70

Keywords: First Amendment, government speech, property

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: August 6, 2010 ; Last revised: December 21, 2014

Suggested Citation

Blocher, Joseph, Government Property and Government Speech (August 4, 2010). William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 52, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1653644 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1653644

Contact Information

Joseph Blocher (Contact Author)
Duke University - School of Law ( email )
210 Science Drive
Box 90362
Durham, NC 27708
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 432
Downloads: 62
Download Rank: 242,324
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  291

© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.328 seconds