Will Baude   Amy Lamboley   Amanda Butler   Jonathan Baude  Peter Northup   Beth Plocharczyk   Greg Goelzhauser   Heidi Bond   Sudeep Agarwala   Jeremy Reff   Leora Baude

February 20, 2005

Quote of the Day

From The Supreme Court case of Mutual Film Corporation v Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1914):

(Movies) may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of amusement and, it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose.

But why, oh why, is the U.S. Supreme Court adjudicating a free speech claim under the constitution of Ohio?

UPDATE: A reader rejoins:
Why not? Federal courts decide state-law questions all the time. Now that the Supreme Court takes its cases almost entirely by certiorari, it can (and should) avoid getting into state-law issues. But this was an appeal directly from a three-judge district court (which had jurisdiction over the case on both diversity and federal question grounds), so the Court couldn't limit its review to the questions it felt like deciding, could it? And there wasn't any state-court decision for it to defer to -- it was reviewing, de novo, the judgment of a lower federal court. If the censorship scheme violated the Ohio constitution, the Court would have been obligated to reverse and instruct the district court to enjoin the state, right?


TrackBack URL for this entry: http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2225

Freedom of What?

Readings for Professor Robert Post's First Amendment class tomorrow are titled "What is Expression?" This made me wonder-- how and when did it become the case that the First Amendment was seen as protecting not just "speech" and "press" (and assorted other things) but "expression" too, even when not spoken or printed? Professors usually respond with some glib remark about hand-written letters or semaphore flags, but this doesn't quite seem responsive.

Don't get me wrong-- I am all in favor of protecting expression even when it is neither spoken nor printed. I don't think the government should be able to ban Wagner, Magritte, or black armbands. But figuring out a limiting principle for this is very difficult if one wishes to keep all the world from becoming a free speech claim. I thought to myself that it was a shame that the Constitution's text didn't provide any help on discerning how we were to know what expression was Constitutionally sacrosanct and what was not, but then it occurred to me, maybe it does-- maybe an underinclusive/overinclusive rule that spoken and printed expression are off-limits while mime can be, however unwisely, criminalized would be better than unhelpful judicial exposition.

UPDATE: To be clear, I don't mean to suggest that all conduct which consists of speaking words would be Constitutionally immune to all government regulation under this theory, just that the threshold question "What is Expression?" may be the wrong threshold question, and maybe the Constitution (which names not "expression" but "speech" and "press") requires a different threshold inquiry.


TrackBack URL for this entry: http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2224

Chicago Lies

Heidi Bond does a good job of dismantling a bizarre email one of her classmates at Michigan sent to a prospective student, trashing, inter alia, the University of Chicago law school. The email read:

About Chicago and Texas, clearly I have a bias, but I have the following: Chicago - While Chicago has a great ranking and a great reputation, it is an extremely conservative school. Michigan is extremely liberal. So, depending on your personal political philosophy, that might matter to you. Location-wise, UChicago is in the crappiest (and one of the most dangerous) parts of Chicago, buts its in Chicago (where I'm from - an awesome city). Michigan is in the boon docks (lets be honest), but its a gorgeous little college town thats actually pretty cosmopolitan for a college town. The closest city is Detroit, and no one wants to hang out there. But, you are 45 minutes away from Canada's Windsor, which is a fun little town. Regarding collegiality, I would say Michigan beats Chicago, and any other "top ten" school, hands down. The people here are not psychotic competitive law students. Although this, again, is hearsay, I've heard horror stories about students undermining other students and sabotaging their success at Chicago. I think the best way to tell is go visit and talk to people on campus. Lastly, Chicago puts out more "academics" than Michigan. What I mean is, if you're planning to be a law professor, you might have a better shot at Chicago. On the other hand, I've talked to law firm recruiters in Chicago who say that they would hire a Michigan Law grad over a Chicago grad with higher grades based on the lack of ego and general social capabilities of Michigan grads (ie. not socially inept).
So long as one is reasoning by anecdote, I had talked to recruiters who not only said that they would take Chicago grads over Michigan grads, but also preferred them to Yale grads. What does one make of this? Only the uselessness of reasoning by anecdote here.
But the rest of the email is sufficiently laughable to cast further doubt. As Heidi points out, the notion that Hyde Park is the "crappiest" or one of the most dangerous parts of Chicago suggests a very strange metric is at work. Since the author implausibly claims to be a Chicago native, one wonders if she is simply using "part" to refer to everything to the half of the city that is south of Harrison St.
When I was visiting colleges back in high school, I remember being turned away from applying to Swarthmore because of the sheer stupidity of the student who gave my father and me a tour of the place. The student I corresponded with from the Michigan Law School last year was much more useful, though.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/2223

Mr. Edwards's inspiration, V

[Who the heck is Mr. Edwards?]

Yes, I have still more words to post. Some old, some new. ("What are you playing at?" Guildenstern asks Rosencrantz. Rosencrantz replies: "Words, words. They're all we have to go on.")

Atelier: An artist's workroom.

Condign: Fitting, adequate.

Inroad: Invasion, hostile incursion. (From, interestingly, "riding in", rather than a more peaceful path.)

Gaucherie: An awkward or tactless act or expression.

Barnstorm: To travel around the countryside making political speeches, giving lectures, or particiating in baseball games.

Barnburner: An extremely impressive event.

Nonstarter: An idea with no chance of being accepted or being successful. (Note the vast difference between the two!)


TrackBack URL for this entry: http://WWW.crescatsententia.org/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1471