Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1984948
 
 

Footnotes (90)



 


 



Preserving Political Speech from Ourselves and Others


Aziz Z. Huq


University of Chicago Law School

January 13, 2012

Columbia Law Review Sidebar, Forthcoming
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 374

Abstract:     
This Essay is a case study of how and why strict scrutiny varies between cases decided within a particular doctrinal category (political speech) by a given court (the Roberts Court). Two lines of Roberts Court jurisprudence implicate political speech: federal campaign finance cases and a challenge to the federal statute criminalizing “material support” to designated foreign terrorist organizations. My aim here is to examine the common doctrinal matrix of First Amendment strict scrutiny used in those cases to explore how divergent results emerge from a unified analytic framework. A secondary goal is to illustrate how post-9/11 national security concerns find expression inside familiar and seemingly durable doctrinal frameworks.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 19

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: January 14, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Huq, Aziz Z., Preserving Political Speech from Ourselves and Others (January 13, 2012). Columbia Law Review Sidebar, Forthcoming; U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 374. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1984948

Contact Information

Aziz Z. Huq (Contact Author)
University of Chicago Law School ( email )
1111 East 60th Street
Chicago, IL 60637
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 356
Downloads: 64
Download Rank: 209,084
Footnotes:  90

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo1 in 0.391 seconds