Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:59:13.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 October 2021

Robert Corn-Revere
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder
The First Amendment and the Censor's Dilemma
 , pp. 289 - 357
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Primary Sources

and made himself the first of its kept professors.” Mencken, H. L., A Book of Prefaces 255 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1917).Google Scholar
that marks American prudishness. Broun, Heywood and Leech, Margaret, Anthony Comstock: Roundsman of the Lord 229–230 (New York: Albert & Charles Boni, Inc., 1927) (“Broun and Leech”).Google Scholar
the television medium they so love is nothing but a “vast wasteland.” Minow, Newton N., Television and the Public Interest, Speech Before the National Association of Broadcasters (May 9, 1961) (“Vast Wasteland Speech”). See also Corn-Revere, Robert, Avast Ye Wasteland: Reflections on America’s Most Famous Exercise in “Public Interest” Piracy, 55 Fed. Comm. L. J. 481 (2003).Google Scholar
because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition.” Mutual Film Corp. v. Ohio Industrial Commission, 236 US 230 (1915).Google Scholar
protected in the same way as newspapers and books, Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 US 495 (1952).Google Scholar
to censor expression in advance of publication – was strictly limited; Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931).Google Scholar
discussions of intimate subjects could be banned only if they were “prurient” and utterly lacked redeeming social value. Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957).Google Scholar
to “sharpen our enforcement blade.” Testimony of Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Before the United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, at 3 (Feb. 11, 2004).Google Scholar
that penalty was thrown out as “arbitrary and capricious,” and the fine was refunded. CBS Corporation v. FCC, 663 F. 3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 2677 (2012).Google Scholar
and the most searched event online according to Google. Charney, Ben, Jackson’s Super Bowl Flash Grabs TiVo Users, CNET, Feb. 2, 2004 (www.cnet.com/news/jacksons-super-bowl-flash-grabs-tivo-users/); Janet’s Breast Makes Net History, BBC News, Feb. 5, 2004 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3461459.stm).Google Scholar
was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Lester, Will, Poll: Janet Jackson Act Not a Federal Case, Associated Press, Feb. 21, 2004 (https://web.archive.org/web/20040312001041/ http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AP_POLL_JANET_JACKSON?SITE=NJASB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT).Google Scholar
but it wasn’t illegal censorship. Donald Sterling Banned for Life by the NBA for “Deeply Disturbing” Comments, CBS News, Apr. 29, 2014 (www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-sterling-banned-for-life-by-the-nba-for-deeply-disturbing-comments/).Google Scholar
(although the league later vacillated on that policy). McDonell-Parry, Amelia, Why the NFL Put Its New Kneeling Policy on Hold, Rolling Stone, Jul. 20, 2018 (www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-sports/why-nfl-put-new-kneeling-protest-policy-on-hold-701802/).Google Scholar
that was another matter entirely. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. Trump, 928 F. 3d 226 (2nd Cir. 2019); Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656 (DC Cir. 2020); CNN v. Trump, No. 18-cv-2610 (DDC Nov. 16, 2018); Pen America v. Trump, 448 F. Supp.3d 309 (SDNY 2020).Google Scholar
“fake news” (as is done under European law). E.g., Minow, Mary, The Changing Ecosystem of News and Challenges for Freedom of the Press, 64 Loyola Law. Rev. 499 (2018); Tim, Wu, Is the First Amendment Obsolete?, 117 Mich. Law. Rev. 547 (2018).Google Scholar
to prevent them from enforcing such policies on their own. French, David, Josh Hawley’s Internet Censorship Bill Is an Unwise, Unconstitutional Mess, Reason.com, Jun. 20, 2019 (www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/josh-hawley-internet-censorship-bill-unconstitutional/).Google Scholar
“Self-assurance has always been the hallmark of a censor.” Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 US 618, 645 (1995) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
“[t]heir very cocksureness is their chief source of strength.” Mencken, A Book of Prefaces, supra, at 245.Google Scholar
in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 US 624, 642 (1943).Google Scholar
by an official smacks of an ideology foreign to our system.” Hannegan v. Esquire, 327 US 146, 158 (1946).Google Scholar
“one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.” Cohen v. California, 403 US 15, 25 (1971).Google Scholar
to persuade them of the need for his 1873 federal obscenity law. Schwartz, J. C., Federal Censorship: Obscenity in the Mail (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961);Google Scholar
Heins, Marjorie, Not in Front of the Children 31–32 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2001).Google Scholar
and the suppressor is gratified by finding his vice.” See Broun and Leech, supra, at 273.Google Scholar
examples of such public hypocrisy “are too multitudinous to permit a detailed inventory.” Ernst, Morris L and Seagle, William, To the Pure – A Study of Obscenity and the Censor 14 (New York: Viking Press, 1928).Google Scholar
because of a habit of masturbation.” Ernst, Morris L. and Schwartz, Alan U., Censorship – The Search for the Obscene 29–30 (New York: The McMillan Co. 1964) (“Ernst and Schwartz”).Google Scholar
sex is a weak second.” Hentoff, Nat, Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other 1 (New York: Harper Collins, 1992).Google Scholar
so is euphemistic evasion. François de La Rochefoucauld, Sentences and Moral Maxims, No. 218.Google Scholar
[employed in] defense of the indefensible.” Orwell, George, Politics and the English Language, reprinted in The Orwell Reader 355, 366 (San Diego: Harcourt, Inc., 1984).Google Scholar
cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.” “Freedom Is about Authority”: Excerpts from Giuliani Speech on Crime, New York Times, Mar. 20, 1994 (www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/nyregion/freedom-is-about-authority-excerpts-from-giuliani-speech-on-crime.html).Google Scholar
Sigma Alpha Mu canceled the fundraiser. Rampell, Catherine, Today’s Lesson on Campus: “Controversy Prevention,” Washington Post, Apr. 21, 2017, A21.Google Scholar
truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.” Abrams v. United States, 250 US 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
made it critical that the Supreme Court create doctrine defining freedom of speech. Chafee, Zechariah, Jr., Free Speech in the United States 3 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941); Chemerinsky, Erwin and Gillman, Howard, Free Speech on Campus 36 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Batchis, Wayne, The Right’s First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & The Return of Conservative Libertarianism 13 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
any publication that tended to incite crime or disrespect for the law. Fox v. Washington, 236 US 273 (1915); Patterson v. Colorado, 205 US 454 (1907); Halter v. Nebraska, 205 US 34 (1907); United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 US 279 (1904); Ex Parte Rapier, 143 US 110 (1892); Ex Parte Jackson, 96 US 727 (1878).Google Scholar
a “verbal act,” not protected expression. Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 US 418 (1911).Google Scholar
for circulating anti-draft pamphlets, Schenck v. United States, 249 US 47 (1919).Google Scholar
a newspaper publisher for articles that criticized the war effort, Frohwerk v. United States, 249 US 204 (1919).Google Scholar
Eugene Debs for purportedly obstructing the draft. Debs v. United States, 249 US 211 (1919).Google Scholar
unless “an immediate check is required to save the country.” Abrams v. United States, 250 US 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge.” Id.Google Scholar
140 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified. Stromberg v. California, 283 US 359 (1931); Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931).Google Scholar
even with the mandate or approval of a majority. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 US 803, 818 (2000).Google Scholar
anonymities to turn the color of legal litmus paper.” Abrams v. United States, 250 US 616, 629 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

“a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff.” Stanley Kubrick, Dr. Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (Columbia Pictures, 1964).Google Scholar
to demonstrate the perils of “evil reading.” LaMay, Craig L., America’s Censor: Anthony Comstock and Free Speech, Communications and the Law (Sept. 1997), at 1–59; Paul, James C. N., and Schwartz, Murray L, Federal Censorship: Obscenity in the Mail 18–24 (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961) (“Paul and Schwartz”); Heins, supra, at 31–32;Google Scholar
deGrazia, Edward, Girls Lean Back Everywhere 3–4 (New York: Random House, 1992).Google Scholar
Be that as it may, I am sure that the world is better off without them.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 192.Google Scholar
showing off his collection to the horror of many legislators. Broun and Leech, supra, at 131.Google Scholar
on almost any kind of laws for which their vote might be solicited.” Bennett, D. M., Champions of the Church: Their Crimes and Persecutions 1016 (New York: Liberal and Scientific Publishing House, 1878).Google Scholar
Comstock always called it “my law.” Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 22.Google Scholar
“Anthony Comstock himself was the Comstock Act.” Dix, Scott Matthew, When Contraception Was Outlawed! (editor’s preface to Outlawed! How Anthony Comstock Fought and Won the Purity of a Nation xv–xxii (Middletown, DE: Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences, 2013) (reprinting Charles Galludet Trumbull, Anthony Comstock, Fighter (1913)).Google Scholar
Comstock didn’t exactly cut a dashing figure. Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 18–19.Google Scholar
They disgrace our land and yet consider themselves ladies. Broun and Leech, supra, at 134.Google Scholar
and New York Sun publisher Moses S. Beech. Boyer, Paul S., Purity in Print 5–7 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968).Google Scholar
an independent organization, the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice. LaMay, supra, at 15–17; Blanchard, Margaret A., The American Urge to Censor: Freedom of Expression Versus the Desire to Sanitize Society – From Anthony Comstock to 2 Live Crew, William & Mary Law Review 741–851 (1992); Blanchard, Margaret A. and Semonche, John E., Anthony Comstock and His Adversaries: The Mixed Legacy of This Battle for Free Speech, Communications Law & Policy 317–366 (Summer 2006).Google Scholar
stressing their “personal interest” in the legislation. Carlson, Allan, Pure Visionary, Touchstone – A Journal of Mere Christianity (Jun. 2009).Google Scholar
and Senator William Windom introduced it in the Senate. Broun and Leech, supra, at 129–132; Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 22.Google Scholar
took the bill home to work on it and to combine it with other legislative proposals. Bates, Anna Louise, Weeder in the Garden of the Lord: Anthony Comstock’s Life and Career 81–84 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1995).Google Scholar
supported resolutions that would have allowed legal presumptions to enforce Christian morality. Werbel, Amy, Lust on Trial 67 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
The bill that emerged was all encompassing. Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 22–23; Trumbull, Charles Galludet, Anthony Comstock, Fighter 85–91 (1913).Google Scholar
very few men here that the young men of today can safely pattern after. Broun and Leech, supra, at 138–139.Google Scholar
But he was not criticized publicly – at least not by the politicians. Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 22.Google Scholar
They knew he was there at the behest of powerful benefactors. Boyer, supra, at 5–10.Google Scholar
a joint-stock company organized to finance the building of the transcontinental railroad. Broun and Leech, supra, at 129–132; Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 18.Google Scholar
Comstock’s purity campaign was just the ticket.” Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra, at 747.Google Scholar
All this made talking about smut a welcome distraction. McGarry, Molly H., Spectral Sexualities: Nineteenth-Century Spiritualism, Moral Panics, and the Making of U.S. Obscenity Law, Journal of Women’s History 8–29 (Summer 2000); Long, Kat, The Forbidden Apple, New York Times, Apr. 3, 2009.Google Scholar
it was combined with 15 other proposals that were adopted in a vote at two a.m. LaMay, supra, at 16; Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra, at 748.Google Scholar
despite the fact that, as Congressman Niblack observed, it is “now Sunday morning.” Morone, James A., Hellfire Nation 229 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
the clock in the chamber was stopped to preserve the fiction that it was still Saturday night. Ernst and Schwartz, supra, at 31.Google Scholar
affixing his signature as quickly as an attendant could hand him each one, and without the slightest examination. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra; Giesburg, Judith, Sex and the Civil War 92–95 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2017).Google Scholar
including two boys aged eleven and thirteen. Comstock, Anthony, Traps for the Young (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1883/1967) (editor’s introduction by Robert Bremner); Broun and Leech, supra, at 83–84.Google Scholar
any indecent or immoral use or nature … shall be carried in the mail.” An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use, ch. 258, sec. 2, 17 stat. 598, 599 (1873).Google Scholar
carried not just the power to arrest but also free passage on all rail lines that carried the mail. Schroeder, Patricia, Gifts of Speech, Sept. 24, 1996 (http://gos.sbc.edu/s/schroeder.html).Google Scholar
will soon be in the strong grip of government.” Carlson, supra.Google Scholar
will be forgiven to a Congress which thus powerfully sustains the cause of morality.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 144.Google Scholar
During his first ten months as a special agent, he traveled 23,000 miles in search of contraband. Carlson, supra.Google Scholar
he had made fifty-five arrests and obtained twenty convictions under the new federal law. Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra, at 748.Google Scholar
60,300 “rubber articles,” and 3,150 boxes of pills and powders. Broun and Leech, supra, at 153.Google Scholar
the numbers of people arrested and convicted, and even their nationalities. LaMay, supra, at 21–22, 34.Google Scholar
He also took credit for destroying 160 tons of obscene literature and 4 million pictures. Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra, at 758; Broun and Leech, supra, at 15–16; LaMay, supra, at 2; Morone, supra, at 230; Rabban, David M., Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years (London: Cambridge University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
“to the length of 565 years, 11 months, and 20 days” and fines amounting to $237,134.30. Hopkins, Mary Alden, Birth Control and Public Morals: An Interview with Anthony Comstock, Harper’s Weekly, May 22, 1915, at 489–490.Google Scholar
He openly boasted of causing at least fifteen suicides. LaMay, supra, at 18; Morone, supra, at 230.Google Scholar
88,000 newspapers with ads for “sexual materials,” and 20,000 “figures and images.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Forty-Second Annual Report (1916).Google Scholar
twenty-four states adopting what were called “mini-Comstock” statutes by 1885. McGarry, supra; Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra; Carlson, supra, at 751.Google Scholar
By 1920, all but two states had passed such laws. Bates, supra, at 2.Google Scholar
in cities such as Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Louisville, Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco. New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fifth Annual report (1879); Morone, supra, at 230; Boyer, supra, at 5; Miller, Neil, Banned in Boston 4 (Boston: Beacon Press, 2010).Google Scholar
the first was the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, also known as “the Comstock Society.” Mencken, A Book of Prefaces, supra, at 259.Google Scholar
he finally was able to quit his day job as a dry goods salesman. LaMay, supra, at 17.Google Scholar
the list read “like a Who’s Who of the day.” Boyer, supra, at 6.Google Scholar
and the YMCA wanted some distance from the fray. Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra, at 750.Google Scholar
which may hereafter be enacted for the suppression” of vice. Act of Incorporation, New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, May 16, 1873.Google Scholar
and bring before any court … offenders found violating the provisions of any” state or federal obscenity law. New York Law Sec. 1145; Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra, at 751.Google Scholar
we must not trust to the ordinary officers of the law, and the police to deal with it.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Second Annual Report 9 (Jan. 27, 1876).Google Scholar
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Cogan, Neil H., ed., The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins 83 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
they would have framed an iron-bound section to prevent it.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 223.Google Scholar
Ovid’s Art of Love and Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones (both of which Comstock unsuccessfully tried to suppress in 1894). Ernst and Schwartz, supra, at 34; Anthony Comstock Overruled, New York Times, Jun. 22, 1894; LaMay, supra, at 28.Google Scholar
“[a]ll of the early Presidents enjoyed the frankness and vulgarity of fleshly novels.” Ernst, Morris L. and Seagle, William, To The Pure 256–257 (New York: Viking Press, 1928).Google Scholar
bulged their cheeks in naughty giggles when reading the works of Fielding or Sterne.” Morris L. Ernst, Sex Wins in America, The Nation, Aug. 10, 1932, at 122.Google Scholar
but they hardly bothered our Constitution’s framers. Ernst and Schwartz, supra, at 7.Google Scholar
an obscene, impudent, and indecent posture with a woman.” Commonwealth v. Sharpless, 2 Serg & Rawle 91 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1815).Google Scholar
the same would be offensive to the court here, and improper to be placed upon the records thereof.” Massachusetts v. Holmes, 17 Mass. 336 (1821); Ernst and Schwartz, supra, at 15–16.Google Scholar
Regina v. Hicklin would set that standard for obscenity, not just in Great Britain but also in the USA. Heins, supra, at 32.Google Scholar
Comstock quickly picked up on the Hicklin rule and successfully applied it in numerous prosecutions. E.g., United States v. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. 1093 (2nd Cir. 1879).Google Scholar
until the Supreme Court finally abandoned it in 1957 because of evolving First Amendment concerns. Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957).Google Scholar
“depraves and corrupts those whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” Regina v. Hicklin, LR 3 QB 360 (Queen’s Bench, 1868).Google Scholar
the test was “laid down before our society ever started.” Comstock, Anthony, Morals Versus Art 17, 26 (New York: J. S. Ogilvie & Company, 1887).Google Scholar
holding that the titles alone were enough to support a conviction. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1018.Google Scholar
“I know it when I see it.” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring).Google Scholar
ten years later would abandon even that idea as unconstitutional, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slayton, 413 US 49, 73–74 (1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting, joined by Justices Stewart and Marshall).Google Scholar
Comstock considered the danger of “evil reading” to be worse than yellow fever or smallpox. Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 5–6.Google Scholar
you will have a bid for a life of self-gratification and sin.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 14–16.Google Scholar
As Comstock put it, “infidelity and obscenity occupy the same bed.” Comstock, Anthony , Frauds Exposed; Or, How the People are Deceived and Robbed, and Youth Corrupted 443 (New York: Cosimo Classics, 1880/2009).Google Scholar
to hide the fact of the extra- or nonmarital relations from public view. Beisel, Nicola, Imperiled Innocents: Anthony Comstock and Family Reproduction in Victorian America 36–42 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google Scholar
And if contraceptives fail, abortion then becomes necessary. Trumbull, supra, at 4041; LaMay, supra, at 45.Google Scholar
and an additional 900,000 abortions over a thirty-year period.) Brief Amicus Curiae of 100 Scholars of Marriage in Support of Respondents, Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 (Supreme Court, 2015), at 3, 22.Google Scholar
he must do it in a decent and lawful manner or not at all.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 408–409.Google Scholar
while “what they intend leads directly to sin and shame.” Bates, supra, at 128.Google Scholar
in his mind, they “added hypocrisy to vice,” Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 31.Google Scholar
he used such terms as “infidel,” “free luster,” and “abortionist’s pimp” interchangeably. Bremner, supra, at xvii.Google Scholar
“the howling, ranting, blaspheming mob of repealers.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 393.Google Scholar
as pretext in order to close down publications that offended his religious sensibilities. Jacoby, Susan, Freethinkers 209 (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004); Jacoby, Susan, The Great Agnostic 100 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
to overthrow every social restraint. New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fourth Annual Report (1878); Beisel, supra, at 89–90.Google Scholar
corrupts the morals of the young, or destroys all faith in God.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 199.Google Scholar
he considered them utterly immoral and anti-Christian. Beisel, supra, at 85–98.Google Scholar
It also was reputed at the time that the widower Vanderbilt became Tennie’s lover. Bates, supra, at 72; Heins, supra, at 31; Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 60.Google Scholar
addressing the House Judiciary Committee in 1871 on behalf of the Women’s Rights Association. Bates, supra, at 72; Broun and Leech, supra, at 95, 111.Google Scholar
“servitude of the hardest kind, and just for board and clothes, at that.” MacPherson, Myra, The Scarlet Sisters: Sex, Suffrage, and Scandal in the Gilded Age 63–64 (New York: Twelve Books, 2014).Google Scholar
she proclaimed, “We mean treason!” Bates, supra, at 72–73.Google Scholar
the iniquity and morbidness in which she now wallows for existence.” Bates, supra, at 72–73.Google Scholar
neither you nor any law you can frame have any right to interfere. Woodhull, Victoria, And the Truth Shall Make You Free: A Speech on the Principles of Social Freedom (Address at Steinway Hall, New York, Nov. 20, 1871).Google Scholar
the first American newspaper to publish Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Bates, supra, at 71.Google Scholar
“burst like a bombshell into the ranks of the moralistic social camp.” Woodhull, Victoria, The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case, The Woodhull and Clafin Weekly, Nov. 2, 1872.Google Scholar
preaching one set of values while practicing another. Woodhull, The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case, supra; Applegate, Debby, The Most Famous Man in America: The Biography of Henry Ward Beecher 422 (New York: Image Books, 2006); Broun and Leech, supra, at 100; Beisel, supra, at 85–86.Google Scholar
and that he shared them with numerous friends. Woodhull, The Beecher-Tilton Scandal Case, supra; Broun and Leech, supra, at 102; Bates, supra, at 73.Google Scholar
and second-hand copies fetched as much as $40 apiece. MacPherson, supra, at 185; Applegate, supra, at 422; Bennett, supra, at 1022; Broun and Leech, supra, at 116.Google Scholar
thus invoking the jurisdiction of federal law. MacPherson, supra, at 186; Broun and Leech, supra, at 102.Google Scholar
a Plymouth Church parishioner and friend of Reverend Beecher. MacPherson, supra, at 186; Paul, James C. N. and Schwartz, Murray L, Federal Censorship: Obscenity in the Mail 20 (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961).Google Scholar
the women were whisked off to the Ludlow Street jail, where they languished for weeks. Broun and Leech, supra, at 105; Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 20.Google Scholar
and destroyed 3,000 copies of the Weekly. Heins, supra, at 31.Google Scholar
the carriage attracted a growing procession of onlookers. Bates, supra, at 74.Google Scholar
more sedate in appearance, and of a less lovely turn.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 103.Google Scholar
a gentleman whom the whole country reveres,” the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher. Broun and Leech, supra, at 103.Google Scholar
“the sensational comedy of free love.” MacPherson, supra, at 190; Broun and Leech, supra, at 105.Google Scholar
because they refused to cease selling their newspaper. Bates, supra, at 76.Google Scholar
where she denounced the prosecution as a violation of freedom of the press. MacPherson, supra, at 193.Google Scholar
but was immediately taken into custody. Woodhull and Blood, The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Jan. 10, 1873, 2; Bates, supra, at 77; Broun and Leech, supra, at 116–118.Google Scholar
the sisters and Colonel Blood were assessed $80,000 in bail. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1022.Google Scholar
for running Tammany Hall’s corrupt political machine. MacPherson, supra, at 196; Broun and Leech, supra, at 120.Google Scholar
a drama that “has seldom been surpassed for filthiness of detail.” MacPherson, supra, at 190–191.Google Scholar
Comstock’s fumbling responses were roundly mocked in the press. Bates, supra, at 77; Broun and Leech, supra, at 118–119.Google Scholar
applied to books, pamphlets, and pictures, but not to newspapers or advertisements. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 29; Beisel, supra, at 80; Broun and Leech, supra, at 122.Google Scholar
had inspired him to lobby Congress for expanded authority. Bates, supra, at 76.Google Scholar
The Brooklyn Eagle dubbed the case “An Inglorious Failure.” MacPherson, supra, at 204; Broun and Leech, supra, at 122.Google Scholar
what should have been a matter of local concern. Bates, supra, at 76.Google Scholar
“a dastard’s blow at liberty and law in the United States.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 124–125.Google Scholar
Why should I be?” Bates, supra, at 76; Broun and Leech, supra, at 15.Google Scholar
as well as various radical causes. MacPherson, supra, at 72–73.Google Scholar
dictator of a new government he wanted to form for America. Bates, supra, at 126; Broun and Leech, supra, at 108–109, 111.Google Scholar
he was leery of her free love position. Bates, supra, at 75.Google Scholar
and later some salacious passages from the Old Testament under sensational headlines. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1023; Broun and Leech, supra, at 108–110.Google Scholar
“disgusting slanders on Lot, Abraham, Solomon and David.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 110.Google Scholar
Train could pay his bail, yet he refused to do so. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1023.Google Scholar
but the court declined to accept a conditional plea. Broun and Leech, supra, at 110–111.Google Scholar
playfully dubbed “the Train matinees.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 112.Google Scholar
“This,” Comstock proclaimed, “is Free Love.” Bates, supra, at 126; Broun and Leech, supra, at 112.Google Scholar
who insinuated that Comstock had acted as a paid informer. Bates, supra, at 126–127; Broun and Leech, supra, at 112–113.Google Scholar
he slipped away to board a ship bound for England. Bates, supra, at 126–127; Broun and Leech, supra, at 111–114.Google Scholar
by comparing his illicit affair to a naval battle. Beisel, supra, at 86.Google Scholar
the satisfaction that had eluded him after the Train fiasco. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1023–1024; Bates, supra, at 127–128.Google Scholar
decried the strictures of matrimony and extolled the virtues of sexual freedom. Heins, supra, at 32–33.Google Scholar
a “dull little sociological treatise.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 171.Google Scholar
to very much less than men get for the same work.” Heywood, Ezra H., Cupid’s Yokes 21 (Princeton, MA: Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1876).Google Scholar
committing adultery, and Comstock for despotism and cruelty. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 33.Google Scholar
falsity with which ‘great men’ endeavor to appease, cajole, and defy equivocal public opinion.” Heywood, supra, at 10.Google Scholar
“This is clearly the spirit that ignited the fires of the Inquisition.” Heywood, supra, at 11–12; Broun and Leech, supra, at 193.Google Scholar
Heywood to be the “chief creature” promoting the “vile creed” of free love. Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 163; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 35; Broun and Leech, supra, at 172–173.Google Scholar
an erudite man who was respected in his community that so incensed Comstock. Broun and Leech, supra, at 170–171.Google Scholar
Mr. Heywood must be crushed out and sent to prison.” Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1060.Google Scholar
“Thus, reader,” Comstock boasted, “the devil’s trapper was trapped.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 163–166.Google Scholar
and a medical text entitled Sexual Physiology. Broun and Leech, supra, at 172–174.Google Scholar
selected passages were provided to jurors as they entered the jury room. Broun and Leech, supra, at 174; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 36; Beisel, supra, at 91.Google Scholar
“Massachusetts would become a vast house of prostitution.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fifth Annual Report 14 (1879); Broun and Leech, supra, at 174; Bates, supra, at 135–136.Google Scholar
to exclude immoral materials from the US mail. Ex Parte Jackson, 96 US 727, 736 (1877).Google Scholar
now by their good service has been settled in our favor.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fifth Annual Report 14 (1879).Google Scholar
who had strong political connections that extended even to the White House. New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fifth Annual Report, supra, at 6–9; Broun and Leech, supra, at 177; Bates, supra, at 129; Beisel, supra, at 92; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 38.Google Scholar
who had made final revisions to the bill that became the Comstock Act. Broun and Leech, supra, at 177; Bates, supra, at 139.Google Scholar
freedom of the press and to the great hurt of the learned professions.” Beisel, supra, at 92.Google Scholar
Butler “presented” the petition without endorsing its substance. Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 29.Google Scholar
“backed by one of the basest conspiracies ever concocted against a holy cause.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 192; Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 328–332.Google Scholar
the opposition by publishing injurious insinuations against the agent.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fifth Annual Report, supra, at 6–7.Google Scholar
not established to carry instruments of vice, or obscene writings, indecent pictures, or lewd books.” Beisel, supra, at 92.Google Scholar
but no action was taken. Broun and Leech, supra, at 179.Google Scholar
drawing nearly six thousand people to protest Heywood’s conviction. Proceedings of the Indignation Meeting Held in Faneuil Hall, Thursday Evening, Aug. 1, 1878 (Boston: Benj. R. Tucker, 1878).Google Scholar
demanded total repeal of the Comstock law as opposed to more moderate reforms. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 38; Bates, supra, at 135–136.Google Scholar
six months into Heywood’s sentence. Broun and Leech, supra, at 170; Beisel, supra, at 94–95.Google Scholar
“it is no crime by the laws of the United States to advocate the abolition of marriage.” Beisel, supra, at 94–95.Google Scholar
“obscene, lascivious, lewd, or corrupting in the criminal sense.” Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 333.Google Scholar
destroy all that is lovely and of good report, and who openly boast of their crimes.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fifth Annual Report, supra, at 9.Google Scholar
a great hindrance to the further enforcement of the law.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 174–175; Bates, supra, at 137–138.Google Scholar
which led to additional arrests and prosecutions. Bates, supra, at 131.Google Scholar
puckishly called the “Comstock Syringe.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 183–184; Beisel, supra, at 98–99; Bates, supra, at 143.Google Scholar
he ceased publishing contraceptive advertisements in The Word, lest he be arrested again. Bates, supra, at 143.Google Scholar
charges were dropped by the US attorney. Beisel, supra, at 101.Google Scholar
“fuck,” “penis,” “womb,” “semen,” and “vagina.” Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 338.Google Scholar
Heywood served all but two months of his sentence. Bates, supra, at 143; Beisel, supra, at 101.Google Scholar
“who will in the future be classed with murderers.” Bates, supra, at 144.Google Scholar
and who published the leading free-thought journal of the day. Jacoby, Freethinkers, supra, at 209.Google Scholar
everything that degrades or burdens mankind mentally or physically.” Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra.Google Scholar
“the mouthpiece of these moral cancer planters.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 396. Comstock was moved to arrest Bennett in November 1877. Bates, supra, at 138–139.Google Scholar
which mankind could well spare, losing nothing by its rejection?” Bennett, D.M., An Open Letter to Jesus Christ (New York: The Truth Seeker Co., 1876); Beisel, supra, at 90–91.Google Scholar
without regard to the rights, morals or liberties of others.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 175.Google Scholar
the case was hastily dropped in early January 1878 notwithstanding a grand jury indictment. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1066.Google Scholar
Ingersoll had campaigned for President Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876. Jacoby, Freethinkers, supra, at 209.Google Scholar
a “monstrous conspiracy” to undo his divinely inspired law. Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 388–515.Google Scholar
a “foul-mouthed libertine” and an “apostle of nastiness.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 495–496.Google Scholar
a first-class Torquemada, Calvin, Alva, Charles IX, or Matthew Hopkins.” Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1009.Google Scholar
who has labored with more resolution and zest” than Comstock. Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1010, 1064.Google Scholar
to Washington in 1878 to lobby against the repeal petition. Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 430.Google Scholar
it could be used as a contraceptive when combined with salicylic acid. Bates, supra, at 139, 141; Beisel, supra, at 94.Google Scholar
boycotted its products on principle. Broun and Leech, supra, at 189.Google Scholar
not just of embarrassment but of unwanted pregnancies. Jacoby, Freethinkers, supra, at 208.Google Scholar
and was arrested under state law. Broun and Leech, supra, at 180; Bates, supra, at 141.Google Scholar
to send Cupid’s Yokes to anyone who wanted it. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 36–37.Google Scholar
advertise Cupid’s something or other, you know what I mean.” Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 25–26; Broun and Leech, supra, at 180.Google Scholar
and not just based on portions the prosecutor selected to read to the jury. United States v. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. 1093, 1099–1100 (2nd Cir. 1879).Google Scholar
improper to be placed on the court records.” United States v. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. at 1094.Google Scholar
passages of the book marked by the prosecutor, which were read to the jury. United States v. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. at 1098–1099.Google Scholar
the United States is one great society for the suppression of vice.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 89; Bremner, supra, at xxix.Google Scholar
It is the prosecution of the United States.” United States v. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. at 1101.Google Scholar
“if it would suggest impure and libidinous thoughts in the young and the inexperienced.” United States v. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. at 1101–1102; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 37–38; Blanchard, The American Urge to Censor, supra, at 755–756; Paul and Schwartz, supra, at 26–28.Google Scholar
Bennett’s counsel and friends boasted that a pardon would be granted within ten days. Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 485; Bates, supra, at 141.Google Scholar
as the petition reportedly garnered 200,000 signatures. Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 496.Google Scholar
for the same crime for which Heywood had been pardoned? Broun and Leech, supra, at 182.Google Scholar
“[h]e was pardoned because facts were suppressed.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 485–486.Google Scholar
Hayes denied the pardon petition. Broun and Leech, supra, at 182; Bates, supra, at 141–142; Beisel, supra, at 95; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 40–41.Google Scholar
“evidences of this man’s character.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 496–498.Google Scholar
“The Defender of Liberty and Its Martyr.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 182–183.Google Scholar
Morals stand first.” Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 5.Google Scholar
during the year [1875], but 17 were Americans.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Second Annual report, supra, at 11.Google Scholar
to help “keep undesirable classes from our shores.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Thirty-Fifth Annual report 16 (1909); Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 346; LaMay, supra, at 34–35.Google Scholar
a quarter of Comstock’s prosecutions in 1915 represented these nationalities. LaMay, supra, at 22.Google Scholar
referring to Shaw as some “Irish smut-dealer.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 230.Google Scholar
to deify this ‘companion of every other crime.’” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 168–169.Google Scholar
comes in its most insidious, fascinating and seductive form.” Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 4–5.Google Scholar
making the lascivious conception only the more insidious and demoralizing.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Eighth Annual report 6 (1882).Google Scholar
perhaps to avoid the embarrassment of a high-profile loss at his home base. Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 344; Beisel, supra, at 167.Google Scholar
enjoyed phenomenal sales because of the controversy. Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 342–344; Beisel, supra, at 165; Boyer, supra, at 15.Google Scholar
“The Boston fools have already made me more than $2,000.” Miller, Banned in Boston, supra, at 14–17.Google Scholar
so prostituted from what has heretofore been thought to be their proper and legitimate place.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Fifth Annual Report, supra, at 15–17.Google Scholar
“little better than histories of brothels and prostitutes, in these lust-cursed nations.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 172, 179.Google Scholar
“death-dealing powers of strychnine are the same whether administered as a sugar-coated pill or in its natural state.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 168, 182–183.Google Scholar
simply because clothed in smooth verse or choice rhetoric.” Comstock, Anthony, Vampire Literature, The North American Review 165–166 (Aug. 1891).Google Scholar
only the Italian original could properly be considered a classic. Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 173–176.Google Scholar
“Fifth Avenue has no more rights in this respect than Centre Street or the Bowery.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 223.Google Scholar
the greatest educational benefit to the community.” Beisel, supra, at 172–173.Google Scholar
“subversive to the best interests both of art and morality.” Werbel, Amy, The Crime of the Nude, Winterthur Portfolio (2014), at 266.Google Scholar
galvanized opposition from prominent artists, public intellectuals, and respectable organizations. Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 264–266.Google Scholar
in character and effect a very different thing.” Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 9–10; Beisel, supra, at 176–177.Google Scholar
the siren song of titillating art could be confined in galleries. Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 8–9.Google Scholar
it served the interests of his wealthy benefactors. Beisel, supra, at 185–187.Google Scholar
“a social nuisance almost as pestilent as that which he exists to abate.” Mr. Comstock’s Censorship, New York Times, Mar. 24, 1888, at 4; Beisel, supra, at 190.Google Scholar
released Comstock’s letters and his response to the press. Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 192193; Beisel, supra, at 178–189.Google Scholar
“he was not dissuaded from his campaign against the arts.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 225; Beisel, supra, at 176, 187–193.Google Scholar
“influencing 60,000 young girls annually to turn to lives of shame.” Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 251, 255, 271; Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 268–272, 277.Google Scholar
a nineteen-year-old bookkeeper who handed him a copy of the journal. Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 250–251; Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 272.Google Scholar
destroyed somewhere between 2,500 and 3,650 copies of the League’s pamphlet. Bates, supra, at 178–179; Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 272; Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 278.Google Scholar
“to anyone who happened to call for them.” Trumbull, supra, at 130–131.Google Scholar
whenever they could find space on a wall for a sketch.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 216–219; Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 256; Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 272–274.Google Scholar
with even Life magazine getting in on the fun. Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 256–257; Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 273–274.Google Scholar
“preposterous pruriency.” Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 268.Google Scholar
after the League’s lawyer cut a backroom deal to allow destruction of the journals. Trumbull, supra, at 175–179; Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 272–273; Werbel, Lust on Trial, supra, at 277.Google Scholar
even before the trial began. Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 273.Google Scholar
but when they break out, they must be suppressed.” Bates, supra, at 179.Google Scholar
I’ll confiscate your whole stock.” Comstock Dooms September Morning, New York Times, May 11, 1913, at 1.Google Scholar
if I have to spend the value of my entire stock in contesting the point with Mr. Comstock.” Comstock Dooms September Morning, supra, at 1.Google Scholar
because the crowds around the display window kept paying customers from entering the shop. Wearies of Waiting a Comstock Arrest, New York Times, May 15, 1913, at 7.Google Scholar
the Fair’s committee of “Lady Managers,” no further action was taken. Cairo Dances to Go, New York World, Aug. 5, 1893, at 3; Broun and Leech, supra, at 225–228.Google Scholar
can be viewed on YouTube to this day. Little Egypt 1896 (http://youtu.be/zxZoXJBILbc).Google Scholar
Comstock’s objection was that the book dealt with sexual anatomy. Bates, supra, at 79.Google Scholar
“more offensive to decency” than the smut he suppressed. Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 158.Google Scholar
“no reputable physician has ever been prosecuted under these laws.” Hopkins, Birth Control and Public Morals: An Interview with Anthony Comstock, supra, at 489–490.Google Scholar
Abbey was convicted and given a light sentence, although it was never carried out. Bennett, D. M., An open Letter to Samuel Colgate 30–32 (New York: D. M. Bennett, Liberal Publisher, 1879).Google Scholar
provided information on birth control in his publications. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 39; Bates, supra, at 155.Google Scholar
to oppose his 1872 legislative proposal to the New York assembly for an obscenity law. Wood, Janice Ruth, The Struggle for Free Speech in the United States 1872–1915 3–4, 62–83 (New York: Routledge Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Comstock ordered a copy of a Foote pamphlet entitled Words in Pearl. Bates, supra, at 155–156.Google Scholar
Comstock obtained a copy of the pamphlet using a decoy letter and arrested Foote. Wood, supra, at 53–56.Google Scholar
it would “afford an easy way of nullifying the law.” United States v. Foote, 25 F. Cas. 1140 (SDNY 1876).Google Scholar
Foote was convicted and fined $3,500. Bates, supra, at 156; Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1039.Google Scholar
(although some suggest that he just became more subtle about it). Wood, supra, at 36.Google Scholar
300,000 copies of his popular home guide Medical Common Sense between 1858 and 1876. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 40.Google Scholar
(or the blame, depending on your outlook). Wood, supra, at 5, 62–64.Google Scholar
continued to wage battles for freedom of expression in the early twentieth century. Wood, supra, at 76–81.Google Scholar
in 1873 alone he arrested thirty-five people for advocating contraceptives and secured twenty-five convictions. Bates, supra, at 154.Google Scholar
beginning with her 1878 arrest for selling “a certain article … made of India Rubber and sponge.” Bates, supra, at 166; Wood, supra, at 89.Google Scholar
once again the district attorney declined prosecution. Bennett, An Open Letter to Samuel Colgate, supra, at 35–36.Google Scholar
As before, the grand jury cleared her of the charge. Bates, supra, at 166–168.Google Scholar
Sieckel was sentenced to a $500 fine and a year in prison. Bates, supra, at 103–104.Google Scholar
“Is it not time to defy this law?” Margaret Sanger, The Woman Rebel (Jul. 1914), at 5; Bates, supra, at 198.Google Scholar
“No Gods or Masters.” William Sanger to Fight in Court for Birth Control, New York Times, Sept. 5, 1915.Google Scholar
not just deemed unmailable; they were confiscated. Sanger, Margaret, Comstockery in America, International Socialist Review (1915), at 46–49.Google Scholar
Sanger had 100,000 copies of the small pamphlet distributed to factories and mines throughout the country. Sanger, Comstockery in America, supra.Google Scholar
Can’t everybody, whether rich or poor, learn to control themselves?” Broun and Leech, supra, at 249.Google Scholar
I decided to take an indefinite postponement and left for London.” Sanger, Comstockery in America, supra; Bates, supra, at 198–199.Google Scholar
he looked for a copy “as a special favor to a friend of his wife.” William Sanger to Fight in Court for Birth Control, New York Times, Sept. 5, 1915.Google Scholar
the man returned with Comstock, who promptly arrested Sanger. Sanger, Comstockery in America, supra; Bates, supra, at 198–199; LaMay, supra, at 54–55.Google Scholar
Sanger “lived separate from his family with many artists in the house.” Bates, supra, at 199.Google Scholar
including Alexander Berkman and labor activist Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, later a founding member of the ACLU. Disorder in Court as Sanger Is Fined, New York Times, Sept. 11, 1915.Google Scholar
they would be rendering society a greater service.” Disorder in Court as Sanger Is Fined, New York Times, Sept. 11, 1915; Broun and Leech, supra, at 249.Google Scholar
“a heinous criminal who sought to turn every home into a brothel.” LaMay, supra, at 54–55; Bates, supra, at 200.Google Scholar
I have disregarded the threat.” Disorder in Court as Sanger Is Fined, New York Times, Sept. 11, 1915.Google Scholar
Family Limitation was indecent, immoral, and a menace to society. Bates, supra, at 200.Google Scholar
“Then,” Judge McInerney responded, “you will go to jail.” Disorder in Court as Sanger Is Fined, New York Times, Sept. 11, 1915; Broun and Leech, supra, at 250; Bates, supra, at 200.Google Scholar
struggled to clear the crowd into the corridor. Disorder in Court as Sanger Is Fined, New York Times, Sept. 11, 1915.Google Scholar
far short of the one-year imprisonment and $1,000 fine that could have been imposed. William Sanger to Fight in Court for Birth Control, New York Times, Sept. 5, 1915.Google Scholar
“as fast as one circulator was arrested[,] another would step forward and take his place.” Disorder in Court as Sanger Is Fined, New York Times, Sept. 11, 1915.Google Scholar
on September 21, 1915, the old crusader died. Broun and Leech, supra, at 258–259; Bates, supra, at 200.Google Scholar
“and from his successful efforts to convict William Sanger.” Anthony Comstock Dies in His Crusade, New York Times, Sept. 22, 1915, at 1.Google Scholar
“served for forty years as the national line between virtue and vice.” Werbel, Amy, Searching for Smut, Common-Place (Oct. 2010).Google Scholar
and made himself the first of its kept professors.” Mencken, A Book of Prefaces, supra, at 255, 260.Google Scholar
“the foremost policeman of private vices in America’s Gilded Age.” LaMay, Craig L., America’s Censor: Anthony Comstock and Free Speech, 1 Communications and the Law 41 (Sept. 1997).Google Scholar
“over most of the civilized world.” Hopkins, Mary Alden, Birth Control and Public Morals: An Interview with Anthony Comstock, Harper’s Weekly, May 22, 1915, at 489–490.Google Scholar
a fallen “soldier of righteousness,” Broun and Leech, supra, at 259.Google Scholar
“the most spectacular crusader against vice that America has known.” LaMay, supra, at 1–2.Google Scholar
his crusades against books, pictures and plays that he deemed indecent.” Anthony Comstock Dies in His Crusade, New York Times, Sept. 22, 1915, at 1.Google Scholar
“served a good cause with tireless devotion.” Boyer, Paul S., Purity in Print 29 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968).Google Scholar
a conspiracy of silence against certain of the major concerns of mankind.” Van Doren, Carl, Why the Editorial Board Chose This Book, 3 Wings (New York: The Literary Guild of America, Inc., 1927).Google Scholar
fornication, adultery, pornography, contraception, easy divorce, abortion, and sodomy.” Carlson, Allan, Pure Visionary, Touchstone – A Journal of Mere Christianity (Jun. 2009);Google Scholar
Carlson, Allan, (Forward to Outlawed! How Anthony Comstock Fought and Won the Purity of a Nation xi (Middletown, DE: Western Conservatory of the Arts and Sciences, 2013) (reprinting Charles Galludet Trumbull, Anthony Comstock, Fighter (1913)).Google Scholar
This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 2598 (2015).Google Scholar
so many joking comments by people in Europe as Comstockery in America.” Sanger, Comstockery in America, supra, at 46–49.Google Scholar
“the historical image of Anthony Comstock is more comic than threatening.” Heins, supra, at 29.Google Scholar
“the whipping boy of present day public opinion.” Collier, John, Anthony Comstock – Liberal, Survey, Nov. 6, 1915, at 127.Google Scholar
a mail clerk smarted under the reprimands of this irascible superior.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 145.Google Scholar
at considerable expense, to remove the garment. Comstock at Princeton, New York Times, Mar. 31, 1888; Bates, supra, at 185.Google Scholar
depicting a time in which Comstock’s influence caused even horses, dogs, and birds to wear trousers. Gibson, Charles Dana, A Scene in the Moral Future, Life, Jan. 12, 1888.Google Scholar
the advertiser was thrilled by the notoriety. A Shock to Sir Anthony, New York Times, Dec. 28, 1895.Google Scholar
“not at all libidinous.” Cairo Dances to Go, The World, Aug. 5, 1893, at 5; Broun and Leech, supra, at 227.Google Scholar
“at best, laughable,” and “at worst, revolting.” Mencken, H. L., The Emperor of Wowsers, New York Herald Tribune, Mar. 6, 1927.Google Scholar
single-handedly fought the battle for national purity … and won.” Kevin Peeples, Anthony Comstock: Fighter (2014).Google Scholar
How Anthony Comstock Fought & Won the Purity of a Nation. Trumbull, Charles Galludet, Anthony Comstock, Fighter 85–91 (1913); Outlawed! How Anthony Comstock Fought and Won the Purity of a Nation, supra.Google Scholar
he dramatically curtailed the pornography industry, and nearly eliminated both abortion and contraception.” Scott Matthew Dix, When Contraception Was Outlawed! (editor’s preface to Outlawed! How Anthony Comstock Fought and Won the Purity of a Nation, supra, at xviii, xxi).Google Scholar
“makes for wickedly amusing reading today.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 443.Google Scholar
Comstock “both embodied and caricatured the moral sense of his epoch.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at xxxi).Google Scholar
halfway between that enjoyed by phrenology and that enjoyed by homosexuality.” Mencken, The Emperor of Wowsers, supra.Google Scholar
America is a provincial place, a second rate country town civilization after all.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 229–230.Google Scholar
for personally covering up advertisements for the Metropolitan Museum of Art that offended him. Comstockery, New York Times, Dec. 12, 1895; LaMay, supra, at 29–30; Broun and Leech, supra, at 231.Google Scholar
exercised their talents on the noted Secretary of the Society for the Suppression of Vice.” Anthony Comstock Dies in His Crusade, supra, at 1, 6.Google Scholar
“[m]ost people don’t even like the word – especially the censors.” Gardner, Gerald, The Censorship Papers xi (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1987).Google Scholar
far more harm to women than pornographic pictures.” Bates, supra, at vii.Google Scholar
everyone wants to know how you got into the business.” Vizzard, Jack, See No Evil 9 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970).Google Scholar
“strange or hypocritical to mention freedom of expression in the same breath with censorship.” Schneider, Alfred, The Gatekeeper 5 (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2001).Google Scholar
if we have the eyes to read them.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 192.Google Scholar
the ridicule that was heaped on Comstock began at the very outset of his vigilante career. Anthony Comstock Dies in His Crusade, supra, at 6.Google Scholar
“if the policy of suppression is pushed to extremes.” The Suppression of Vice, The North American review 484–501 (Nov. 1882).Google Scholar
whose methods were displeasing to saints.” Bremner, supra, at xvi.Google Scholar
did not always sit well with other reformers. Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 317–366.Google Scholar
he thinks no one has the right to work for social purity without first obtaining permission from him.” Bremner, supra, at xxvi–xxvii.Google Scholar
depicted a Victorian gentleman stoking a bonfire with books. Boyer, supra, at 250.Google Scholar
changed its name to the Society to Maintain Public Decency. Gertzman, Jay A., John Saxton Sumner of the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice: A Chief Smut-Eradicator of the Interwar Period, 14 Journal of American Culture 41–47 (Jun. 1994).Google Scholar
and whose self-hatred stemmed from an obsession with masturbation Ernst and Schwartz, supra, at 29–30.Google Scholar
the “hard, incontrovertible experience of a Puritan farm-boy, in executive session behind the barn. Mencken, The Emperor of Wowsers, supra.Google Scholar
the impulses of cruelty arise concurrently with the stirrings of sex emotion.” Bates, supra, at 191.Google Scholar
the laws he had made his especial concern.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 191.Google Scholar
instead each prayer or Hymn seemed to add to my misery.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 39.Google Scholar
the zealot treated anything remotely connected with sex as a public danger. Broun and Leech, supra, at 201.Google Scholar
compared them to “wild animals” that must be “caged.” Bates, supra, at 179.Google Scholar
and it became a lifelong habit. Haney, Robert W., Comstockery in America 19 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1960).Google Scholar
some man of desperate fortunes and ambiguous character.” Bennett, D. M., Champions of the Church: Their Crimes and Persecutions 1014 (New York: Liberal and Scientific Publishing House, 1878).Google Scholar
destructive to individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution of our country.” Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1014.Google Scholar
many thousands of people had seen the photos that otherwise would have been unknown to them. What Is the Streisand Effect?, The Economist, Apr. 16, 2013; Streisand v. Adelman, SC-077-257 (Cal. Super. Ct., Dec. 31, 2003).Google Scholar
her name is now forever associated with comically misguided censorship efforts. Rogers, Paul, Streisand’s Home Becomes Hit on Web, San Jose Mercury News, Jun. 24, 2003.Google Scholar
and described the encounter as “sad and ludicrous.” Comstock, Vampire Literature, supra, at 160–161; LaMay, supra, at 29.Google Scholar
put art on page one.” Werbel, Amy, The Crime of the Nude, Winterthur Portfolio (2014), at 267.Google Scholar
“the advertising agents of sex.” Morris Ernst, Sex Wins in America, The Nation, Aug. 10, 1932, at 123.Google Scholar
to see which one can excel the others in unclean stories.” Comstock, Vampire Literature, supra, at 160–161.Google Scholar
invited Comstock to attend rehearsals at the Garrick Theatre. Comstock at It Again, New York Times, Oct. 25, 1905.Google Scholar
Comstock went to court to block the “obscene” performances, but was unsuccessful. Broun and Leech, supra, at 232–234.Google Scholar
with overflow audiences and tickets fetching premium prices. Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 349.Google Scholar
city police had to call out the reserves to manage the crowds. Broun and Leech, supra, at 232.Google Scholar
a confrontation captured in a tongue-in-cheek front-page New York Times account. Broun and Leech, supra, at 238.Google Scholar
that story mutated and eventually took on a life of its own. Comstock Dooms September Morning, New York Times, May 11, 1913, at 1.Google Scholar
was said to spiral from $35 to $10,000. Bates, supra, at 181.Google Scholar
a lithograph that had been rejected as a brewer’s calendar became an overnight sensation. Reichenbach, Harry, Phantom Fame: The Anatomy of Ballyhoo (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1931).Google Scholar
he was not looking for work at the time but was already an established publicist, Washington Post, Aug. 24, 1913; The September Morn Hoax (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_september_morn_hoax).Google Scholar
to prosecute a small art store for selling copies of the print. September Morn Pits Her Beauty Against Censors, Chicago Daily Tribune, Mar. 21, 1913, at 1; September Morn Wins Case, Chicago Daily Tribune, Mar. 22, 1913, at 3.Google Scholar
but was rebuffed by the courts. Broun and Leech, supra, at 238; Doherty, James, The Story of Bathhouse John, Chicago Sunday Tribune, May 24, 1953, at 6.Google Scholar
“might work havoc in the minds of her pupils passing that way.” September Morn Stirs Mr. Comstock, The La Crosse Tribune, May 13, 1913.Google Scholar
people went into the print publishing business merely for the sake of handling this picture.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 239.Google Scholar
copies of the print were on sale in every part of the United States. Anthony Comstock Dies in His Crusade, supra, at 6.Google Scholar
one of the most famous and popular paintings of the twentieth century. The September Morn Hoax (http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/the_september_morn_hoax).Google Scholar
it grew over time to include mainstream publishers, artists, doctors, and merchants. Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 250.Google Scholar
as to reach and corrupt the young and inexperienced.” Comstock, Vampire Literature, supra, at 167–168.Google Scholar
according to conscience, men may be found ready to fight and suffer.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 188–189; Werbel, The Crime of the Nude, supra, at 266, 269.Google Scholar
the insidious repression of the liberties of the people.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 189–190.Google Scholar
to end the Comstock Act and to defend those prosecuted under it. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 40.Google Scholar
to violate the true and constitutional liberty of the press.” National Liberal League, Indignation Meeting Minutes 6 (Boston, MA: Benjamin R. Tucker, 1878).Google Scholar
by their own particular opinion or notion of morality and immorality.” Bennett, Champions of the Church, supra, at 1016.Google Scholar
still this would be no protection to the next vendor of the book.” Schroeder, Theodore S., Obscene Literature and Constitutional Law: A Forensic Defense of Freedom of the Press 313–314 (New York, 1911).Google Scholar
and not to dwell just on what prosecutors thought were the naughty bits. United States v. Bennett, 24 F. Cas. 1093, 1099–1100 (2nd Cir. 1879).Google Scholar
to protect free speech for all, regardless of viewpoint. Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 44–45.Google Scholar
and essential to our existence as a free people.” Free Speech or Slavery, Lucifer: The Light Bearer, Jun. 22, 1905, at 327.Google Scholar
was an organizer and major funder of the League. Wood, Janice Ruth, The Struggle for Free Speech in the United States 1872–1915 62–83 (New York: Routledge, 2008); Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 47–49.Google Scholar
a principled commitment to free expression for all viewpoints on all subjects.” Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 76.Google Scholar
having “done more for free expression in America than any other.” Boyer, supra, at 41; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 54.Google Scholar
blasphemy, censorship of the mails, the Alien and Sedition Acts, free speech for radicals, advertising, and sex censorship. Theodore Schroeder on Free Speech: A Bibliography 1–24 (Stankey-Jones, Nancy E., ed., Free Speech League, 1919); Boyer, supra, at 41–43.Google Scholar
“to increase intellectual hospitality to the end that more truth will prevail.” Schroeder, Theodore S., Methods of Constitutional Construction, the Synthetic Method Illustrated on the Free Speech Clause of the Federal Constitution 41 (Free Speech League, 1914); LaMay, supra, at 35–36.Google Scholar
was well ahead of its time. Schroeder, Obscene Literature and Constitutional Law: A Forensic Defense of Freedom of the Press, supra.Google Scholar
New York City Bar Association and of the British Museum. Schroeder, Theodore S., A Challenge to the Sex Censors 19 (New York: Free Speech League, 1938); Gurstein, Rochelle, The Repeal of Reticence 101 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1996).Google Scholar
a gathering of social reformers billed as a united national effort to promote public virtue. The Elementary School Teacher (Sept. 1906–Jun. 1907), at 100.Google Scholar
debated the legitimacy of obscenity laws via extensive correspondence. Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 364; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra, at 74.Google Scholar
even Biblical quotations and passages from Uncle Tom’s Cabin were not safe from the censors. Schroeder, Theodore S., Freedom of the Press and “Obscene” Literature: Three Essays 732 (Free Speech League, 1906).Google Scholar
He was said to be too ill to attend. Purity Debate One-Sided: Anthony Comstock Fails to Meet His Opponent, Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 11, 1906, at 2.Google Scholar
to prevent “suppression of any scientific and educational purity literature.” Schroeder, Freedom of the Press and “Obscene” Literature, supra, at 7–32.Google Scholar
“a new epoch among purity workers.” Flower, B. O. (editorial), reprinted in Free Speech Anthology 167–171 (New York: Free Speech League, 1909) (Theodore S. Schroeder, ed.); Gurstein, supra, at 128.Google Scholar
by the words, ‘obscene, lewd, or lascivious.’” United States v. Kennerley, 209 F. 119, 120–121 (SDNY 1913); Broun and Leech, supra, at 241–242.Google Scholar
The jury ultimately acquitted the publisher of the obscenity charge. Boyer, supra, at 46–48.Google Scholar
that spawned Comstock’s New York Society for the Suppression of Vice decades earlier. Weinrib, Laura, The Sex Side of Civil Liberties: United States v. Dennett and the Changing Face of Free Speech, University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper, No. 385 (2012), at 340–341, 344.Google Scholar
“much chaste poetry and fiction, as well as many useful medical works would be under the ban.” United States v. Dennett, 39 F. 2d 564, 568–569 (2nd Cir. 1930).Google Scholar
“it must always be remembered that his locale was Celtic and his season spring.” United States v. One Book Called “Ulysses”, 5 F. Supp. 182, 183–184 (SDNY 1933).Google Scholar
because it was not written with “pornographic intent.” One Book Called “Ulysses,” 5 F. Supp. at 183–184.Google Scholar
“does not affect the tendency of a book or picture” to corrupt. Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 4, 26.Google Scholar
“if sold in such a manner as to reach and corrupt the young and inexperienced.” Comstock, Vampire Literature, supra, at 167.Google Scholar
and that, Judge Hand concluded, could not be what Congress had in mind. United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce, 72 F. 2d 705, 706–708 (2nd Cir. 1934).Google Scholar
They are protected by law, while art, if unclean, is not.” Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 4–5.Google Scholar
and his book as “an amazing tour de force.” One Book Called “Ulysses,” 5 F. Supp. at 184.Google Scholar
It turned a cultural insurgency into a civic virtue of a free and open society.” Birmingham, Kevin, The Most Dangerous Book 12 (New York: Penguin Press, 2014).Google Scholar
the right to experiment with a new technique.” One Book Entitled Ulysses by James Joyce, 72 F. 2d at 706, 708.Google Scholar
it was his duty “to act as observer and recorder, not as regulator.” People on Complaint of Sumner v. Miller, 155 Misc. 446, 446–448 (City Magistrate’s Court of New York, 1935).Google Scholar
sold by the retailers and reviewed by the press.” Ernst, Morris, Sex Wins in America, The Nation, Aug. 10, 1932, at 124.Google Scholar
it is one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern.” Roth v. United States, 354 US 476, 487 (1957).Google Scholar
have the full protection” of the First Amendment.” Roth, 354 US at 484, 489–490.Google Scholar
“no such verdict could convince me, without more, that these books are ‘utterly without redeeming social importance.’” Roth, 354 US at 498 (Harlan, J., dissenting in part).Google Scholar
“literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor.” Roth, 354 US at 509–514 (Douglas, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
it lives on, albeit in a greatly diminished form. Kinsley, Jennifer, The Myth of Obsolete Obscenity, 33 Cardozo Arts & Entertainment L. J. 607 (2015).Google Scholar
“I know it when I see it.” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 US 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring).Google Scholar
can reduce the vagueness to a tolerable level.” Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slayton, 413 US 49, 84 (1973) (Brennan, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
to grapple with hard questions about obscenity’s relevance to a global medium. Corn-Revere, Robert, Cyberspace Cases Force Court to Reexamine Basic Assumptions of Obscenity and Child Pornography Jurisprudence, Cato Supreme Court Rev. 115–148 (2002).Google Scholar
prosecutions can be used to limit the availability of adult entertainment and to force local businesses to shut down. Kinsley, supra, at 639–642.Google Scholar
a law that threatened “to torch a large segment of the Internet community.” Reno v. ACLU, 521 US 844, 875, 882 (1997).Google Scholar
at least to the younger generation – a “joke” and a “scapegoat.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 244.Google Scholar
“You are nothing but a little boy trying to tell me my business!” Broun and Leech, supra, at 251–252.Google Scholar
had struck Comstock in response to being called a liar. Broun and Leech, supra, at 252–253.Google Scholar
Sumner would later write that he had been hired to replace the crotchety crusader. LaMay, supra, at 42–43.Google Scholar
They also wanted someone who avoided publicity. Broun and Leech, supra, at 256, 258.Google Scholar
impressed everyone with his even temper. Gertzman, supra; Boyer, supra, at 30.Google Scholar
naturally, he and Comstock fought often. LaMay, supra, at 43.Google Scholar
remained in that post for thirty-five years. Gertzman, supra.Google Scholar
Sumner had taken on the role of running the organization. Anthony Comstock Dies in His Crusade, supra, at 6; Broun and Leech, supra, at 257–258.Google Scholar
his wife’s pro-birth control pamphlet, Family Limitation. Bates, supra, at 199.Google Scholar
the old man’s fraying reputation and buoying his sagging spirits. Broun and Leech, supra, at 258; Bates, supra, at 199; Boyer, supra, at 28.Google Scholar
within ten days died of pneumonia. Anthony Comstock Dies in His Crusade, supra, at 1, 6.Google Scholar
Comstock dictated notes for use by the Society up until the day before his death. Broun and Leech, supra, at 259.Google Scholar
documenting Comstock’s deep-rooted neuroses. Broun and Leech, supra, at 46–58, 63–74, 77–78, 131–144, 178, 261; Ernst and Schwartz, supra, at 29–30.Google Scholar
to keep them from “falling into the wrong hands.” Johnson, Richard Christian, Anthony Comstock: Reform, Vice, and the American Way 5, n. 4 (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1973); LaMay, supra, at 4.Google Scholar
The bad news, of course, was that he never rose again. Schroeder, A Challenge to the Sex Censors, supra, at 16–17.Google Scholar
Hopkins died of tuberculosis, at home and in his bed.) Sharpe, James, Hopkins, Matthew (d. 1647), Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.) (London: Oxford University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
no longer even mentions Comstock. The Evergreen Cemetery (www.theevergreenscemetery.org/).Google Scholar
simplistic and quick-fix solutions. Cohen, Stanley, Folk Devils and Moral Panics 1 (London: Routledge, 3rd ed., 2002).Google Scholar
“may trace the commencement of their career in crime to their attendance in Penny Theatres.” James Grant, Sketches in London (1838); Springhall, John, Youth, Popular Culture and Moral Panics 9, 38–58, 75, 93 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998).Google Scholar
blame dime novels for virtually all the antisocial behavior exhibited by the youth of the period. Blanchard, Margaret A., The American Urge to Censor: Freedom of Expression Versus the Desire to Sanitize Society – From Anthony Comstock to 2 Live Crew, 33 William & Mary Law Rev. 741–851 (1992).Google Scholar
we can expect campaigns to ban or censor it. Springhall, supra, at 7.Google Scholar
the cycle of outrage in the typical moral panic. Drotner, Kirsten, Modernity and Moral Panics, in Media Cultures: Reappraising Transitional Media 52 (Schroder, Michael Skovmand and Christian, Kim, eds., 1992).Google Scholar
fund the American Museum of Natural History. Boyer, Paul S., Purity in Print 12–16 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1968).Google Scholar
normal fixtures on the philanthropic landscape. Boyer, supra, at 12–16.Google Scholar
are to be relentlessly proscribed.” Howe, Julia Ward, The Influence of Literature Upon Crime, Papers and Letters Presented at the First Women’s Congress of the American Association for the Advancement of Women 13, 15, 17 (New York: American Association for the Advancement of Women, 1874).Google Scholar
“standards of propriety are sometimes those of an earlier and grosser age.” Bostwick, Arthur E., The Librarian as Censor, Library Journal 264 (1908).Google Scholar
in praising the campaign against “salacious literature.” Boyer, supra, at 24–25.Google Scholar
to cleanse newsstands and drugstore magazine racks of ‘objectionable’ material.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at vii.Google Scholar
on social media and in Washington today.” Newitz, Annalee, The Original Anti-Feminist Crusader, New York Times, Sept. 22, 2019, at SR-10.Google Scholar
firmly believed “in himself and in his work to the end.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 244, 259.Google Scholar
a “barrier between youth and moral death.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 425.Google Scholar
“contrary not only to the law of the State, but to the law of God.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 249.Google Scholar
“in the hope that the blind be made to see and the erring to correct their ways.” Comstock, Vampire Literature, supra, at 171.Google Scholar
neither the intellect nor [the] judgment to decide what is wisest and best for themselves.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 6.Google Scholar
“I cannot expect to have better treatment than our blessed Master.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 7.Google Scholar
“you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart.” Abrams v. United States, 250 US 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
is by their level of self-assurance Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc., 515 US 618, 645 (1995) (Kennedy, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Monticello.org (www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/eternal-vigilance-price-liberty-spurious-quotation).Google Scholar
“eternal vigilance is the price of moral purity.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 433.Google Scholar
according to Comstock, “defending ‘this, their dear obscenity.’” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 508; Broun and Leech, supra, at 191.Google Scholar
their actions were based on “revenge, avarice, and innate depravity.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 393.Google Scholar
“naturally favor the impure and base.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 196–197.Google Scholar
the “enemies of moral purity.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 418.Google Scholar
a means of persecution, terrorism and blackmail.” Mencken, A Book of Prefaces, supra, at 251.Google Scholar
Comstock bragged that he was responsible for at least fifteen suicides. Broun and Leech, supra, at 192–193; LaMay, supra, at 18; Morone, James A., Hellfire Nation 230 (New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
asserted that some of the names on the petition were forgeries. Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 192–193, 226.Google Scholar
describing his advocacy as “sneering, scoffing, and blasphemous lectures.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 187.Google Scholar
“a scoundrel whom I caught committing a felony.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 194.Google Scholar
created merely “to defend those so charged.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 185.Google Scholar
to help “keep undesirable classes from our shores.” New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Second Annual report 11 (Jan. 27, 1876); New York Society for the Suppression of Vice, Thirty-Fifth Annual report 16 (1909); LaMay, supra, at 34–35; Blanchard and Semonche, supra, at 346.Google Scholar
“little better than histories of brothels and prostitutes, in those lust-cursed nations.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 179.Google Scholar
“see no reason why we should have the sewerage of Great Britain dumped on our shores.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 224, 248–249.Google Scholar
a “foreign writer of filth.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 18, 235–236; Boyer, supra, at 24–25.Google Scholar
all the invective that his violent nature and colorful imagination suggested.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 150.Google Scholar
a post he shared with “rattlesnakes and other poisonous dangers.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 19.Google Scholar
protect the young of our land from the leprosy of this vile trash.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 123.Google Scholar
more dangerous beasts of prey than rabid dogs. Broun and Leech, supra, at 42–43, 86.Google Scholar
Its breath is fetid, and its touch moral prostration and death.” Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, 11–12.Google Scholar
or lighting matches in a powder magazine. Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 228.Google Scholar
while he was just a “weeder in the garden of the Lord.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 396, 414; Bates, supra, at 3.Google Scholar
away from the ‘Lamb of God which taketh away sins of the world.’” Hopkins, Mary Alden, Birth Control and Public Morals: An Interview with Anthony Comstock, Harper’s Weekly, May 22, 1915, at 490; Broun and Leech, supra, at 416–417.Google Scholar
“open to every insidious teacher, and subject to every bad influence.” Comstock, Vampire Literature, supra, at 162; Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 416–417.Google Scholar
the filth will all pour in and the degradation of youth will follow.” Hopkins, supra, at 489–490.Google Scholar
“cursed as thousands of the present day are, with secret vices.” Anthony Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 9.Google Scholar
“seventy-five if not ninety percent of our young men are victims of self-abuse.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 154.Google Scholar
including “[l]ocal congestions, nervous affections and debilities.” Carlson, Allan C., Comstockery, Contraception, and the Family: The Remarkable Achievements of an Anti-Vice Crusader, The Family in America (2009) (http://profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2301.htm).Google Scholar
the very best medical advice and for the protection of women’s health.” Carlson, supra.Google Scholar
break down the health of women and disseminate a greater curse than the plagues and diseases of Europe.” Hopkins, supra, at 489–490.Google Scholar
from the infection or seduction of this class of crime-breeding publications.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 26–37.Google Scholar
theories about the pernicious effects of dime novels. Boyer, supra, at 17–18.Google Scholar
courts would be unable to keep up with the literature-induced crime wave. Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 26–37; Comstock, Vampire Literature, supra, at 164–166.Google Scholar
which was very frequently, that fact was bruited about.” Mencken, The Emperor of Wowsers, supra.Google Scholar
a thing “from which to weave headlines.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 244.Google Scholar
“if one may borrow a stage term, ‘created’ his unique position.” Hopkins, supra, at 489–490.Google Scholar
have been in reality the accomplishments of Mr. Comstock.” Hopkins, supra, at 489.Google Scholar
are invaded by the evil of licentious literature.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 41, 133, 136.Google Scholar
“a devil-trap to captivate the child by perverting taste and fancy.” Comstock Traps for the Young, supra, at 6, 12, 28.Google Scholar
associated with thieves, murderers, libertines, and harlots.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 13, 15–16.Google Scholar
make foul-mouthed bullies, cheats, vagabonds, thieves, desperados, and libertines.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 21, 25.Google Scholar
“should be named ‘recruiting stations for hell.’” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 48–49.Google Scholar
the harvest of this seed-sowing of the Evil one.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 80–81.Google Scholar
then reaching out like immense cuttlefish, draw in, from all sides, our youth to destruction.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 133, 136.Google Scholar
although there is no telling who said it first. Twain, Mark, Chapters from My Autobiography – XX, The North American review 471 (1907).Google Scholar
to fill a long passenger train of more than sixty coaches, Broun and Leech, supra, at 15–16; Blanchard, supra; LaMay, supra; Morone, supra, at 230; Rabban, Free Speech in Its Forgotten Years, supra.Google Scholar
almost 3,000 people for a total of “565 years, 11 months, and 20 days.” Hopkins, supra, at 489–490.Google Scholar
other times he would say that it was eighty-one or as low as ten. Oshinsky, David M., A Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy 103–113 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Cohen, Richard, Trump Is a Modern-Day McCarthy, Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2018, at A21; McCarthy Says Communists Are in State Department, This Day in History (www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-says-communists-are-in-state-department).Google Scholar
This works out to a conviction rate of 73 percent. Mencken, A Book of Prefaces, supra, at 254, n. 1.Google Scholar
3,697 prosecutions and 2,740 convictions, for a success rate of around 74 percent. Gurstein, Rochelle, The Repeal of Reticence 126 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1996); Hopkins, supra, at 489–490.Google Scholar
“while the father of lies lives and his horde of followers inhabit the earth.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 5–6, 442.Google Scholar
and ruin a good man’s name and reputation.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 392.Google Scholar
was to see who could say the bitterest things against the present writer.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 185.Google Scholar
yet I have received nothing but misrepresentation, odium, and abuse.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 5–6.Google Scholar
the Society that has dared to confront this evil.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 434.Google Scholar
“a card-carrying member of the liberal intelligentsia” Wertham, Fredric, Seduction of the Innocent (New York: Main Road Books, Inc., 2004 ed.) (Introduction to 2004 ed. by James E. Reibman, at xxx);Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
“which have brought him to the penitentiary or the State’s prison.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 26–37.Google Scholar
stories of deeds of bloodshed, lust or crime.” New York Penal Law § 1141(2).Google Scholar
photographs of criminals and their victims. Hajdu, David, The Ten-Cent Plague: The Great Comic Book Scare and How It Changed America 96 (New York: Picador, 2008).Google Scholar
‘vehicles for inciting violent and depraved crimes.’” Winters v. New York, 333 US 507, 510, 519–520 (1948).Google Scholar
“not only inspire evil but suggest a form for evil to take.” Puddles of Blood, Time, Mar. 29, 1948.Google Scholar
compared to the sadistic drivel pouring from the presses today.” North, Sterling, A National Disgrace, Chicago Daily News, May 8, 1940 21. See Twomey, John E., The Citizens’ Committee and Comic Book Control: A Study of Extragovernmental Restraint, 20 Law & Contemporary Problems 621, 622 (1955).Google Scholar
moral panics that even predated Comstock. Springhall, John, Youth, Popular Culture and Moral Panics 1–97 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998).Google Scholar
a “national crime against our children.” Hajdu, supra, at 11–13.Google Scholar
no respectable newspaper would think of accepting.” A National Disgrace, supra.Google Scholar
anti-comic book hysteria trace its roots to these articles. Beaty, Bart, Fredric Wertham and the Critique of Mass Culture 113–114 (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2005); Sternheimer, Karen, Pop Culture Panics 77 (New York: Routledge, 2015); Hajdu, supra, at 39–45.Google Scholar
Superman in 1938 and Batman in 1939. Sternheimer, supra, at 73, 76.Google Scholar
sold or traded each month reached 75 million copies. Springhall, supra, at 122, 124. See Hajdu, supra, at 45; Wright, Bradford W., Comic Book Nation 88–89, 155 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001);Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
91 to 95 percent of children between the ages of six and eleven. Note, Regulation of Comic Books, 68 Harvard Law. Rev. 489, 489–90 (Jan. 1955).Google Scholar
“the greatest mass influence on children.” Wertham, Fredric, The Comics … Very Funny!, The Saturday Review of Literature, May 29, 1948, at 8.Google Scholar
“Words and the Comics.” Witty, Paul, Children’s Interest in Reading the Comics, 10 Journal of Experimental Education 100–104 (1941);Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
“Reading the Comics in Grades IV – XII.” Witty, Paul, Smith, Ethel, and Coomer, Anne, Reading the Comics in Grades IV – XII, 28 Educational Administration and Supervision 344–353 (1942).Google Scholar
could make kids prone to daydreaming or becoming “a loafer.” Lansdowne, James D., The Viciousness of the Comic Book, 12 Journal of Education 14–15 (1944).Google Scholar
was that such super beings “defy natural laws.” Hajdu, supra, at 81; Sternheimer, supra, at 7778.Google Scholar
to right the wrongs of the German state.” Southard, Robert E, Parents Must Control the Comics, St. Anthony Messenger, May 1944; Hajdu, supra, at 79–80.Google Scholar
such as no Nazi could ever aspire to.” Gershon Legman, The Comic Books and the Public (remarks as the Mar. 19, 1948 symposium on The Psychopathology of Comic Books), printed in 2 American Journal of Psychotherapy 475 (1948). See Lepore, Jill, The Secret History of Wonder Woman 264 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014); Wright, supra, at 91–92.Google Scholar
the Superman myth is becoming a kind of international monster.” Bauchard, Philippe, A Report on Press, Film and Radio for Children 37–38 (Paris: UNESCO, 1952). See Strauss, Mark, That Time the United Nations Condemned Superman (in Real Life), Gizmodo (Jun. 19, 2014) (https://io9.gizmodo.com/that-time-the-united-nations-condemned-superman-1592310861).Google Scholar
causing drug use and juvenile delinquency. Wright, supra, at 86–87.Google Scholar
and (incidentally), “bred juvenile delinquency.” Comic Books Held Harmful to Youth, New York Times, May 5, 1948, at 35; Sternheimer, supra, at 81; Lepore, supra, at 264–271.Google Scholar
“intellectual marijuana” and harbingers of cultural doom. Mannes, Marya, Junior Has a Craving, New Republic, Feb. 17, 1947, at 20–23; Wright, supra, at 91.Google Scholar
their loathing of such popular culture was unbounded. Tilley, Carol L., Seducing the Innocent: Fredric Wertham and the Falsifications That Helped Condemn Comics. 47 Information & Culture: A Journal of History 404 (2012); Springhall, supra, at 132–133; Hajdu, supra, at 231; Sternheimer, supra, at 75; Wright, supra, at 91–94; Nyberg, supra, at 94.Google Scholar
“the same undercurrent of homosexuality and sadomasochism.” Legman, Gershon, Love and Death: A Study in Censorship (New York: MW Books, 1949); Legman, The Comic Books and the Public, supra, at 476; Springhall, supra, at 133.Google Scholar
published in 2 American Journal of Psychotherapy 472–490 (1948).Google Scholar
the August 1948 issue of Reader’s Digest. Wertham, Fredric, The Comics … Very Funny!, Reader’s Digest, Aug. 1948. See Wright, supra, at 94.Google Scholar
unabashed admiration for public burnings of comic books. Wertham, The Comics … Very Funny!, The Saturday Review of Literature, supra.Google Scholar
off the newsstands and out of the candy stores.” Crist, Judith, Horror in the Nursery, Colliers, Mar. 27, 1948, at 22; Hajdu, supra, at 100–103; Wright, supra, at 94–95.Google Scholar
every home in this country where there are children.” Hajdu, supra, at 103.Google Scholar
sit on committees and decide the fate of children from a distance.” Crist, Horror in the Nursery, supra; Hajdu, supra, at 100–103.Google Scholar
read comics of various kinds, and discuss them with their children. Zorbaugh, Harvey and Gilman, Mildred, What Can YOU Do about Comic Books?, Family Circle, Feb. 1949 at 61–63.Google Scholar
for increasing the level and intensity of juvenile crime. Wertham, Fredric, What Parents Don’t Know about Comic Books, Ladies’ Home Journal, Nov. 1953, at 50–53, 215–217.Google Scholar
prowl on the streets and dismember beautiful girls.” Wertham, What Parents Don’t Know about Comic Books, supra, at 219–220.Google Scholar
in Spencer, West Virginia garnered national press coverage. Wright, supra, at 86–87; Hajdu, supra, at 115–127.Google Scholar
they had the full support of church and school authorities. Hajdu, supra, at 118–119, 120–127; Sternheimer, supra, at 82.Google Scholar
a rally to burn comic books was sponsored by a community police captain. Twomey, supra, at 624.Google Scholar
lighting the bonfire in Victory Park. Hajdu, supra, at 148.Google Scholar
to stay away from retail establishments where such are sold.” Hajdu, supra, at 148–149.Google Scholar
children would prefer to burn comic books than read them. Wertham, The Comics … Very Funny!, The Saturday Review of Literature, supra.Google Scholar
if the language of the statute is sufficiently precise to pass constitutional muster. Winters, 333 US at 520.Google Scholar
a long list of specified crimes from murder to “mayhem.” Hajdu, supra, at 104–108. See Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 501, n. 92.Google Scholar
than not selling whiskey to children is a restraint of trade.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at xi n. 17, 302–305.Google Scholar
would lead to comprehensive state legislation. Hajdu, supra, at 108; Objectionable Books of Comics Disappear from Los Angeles Stands after New Law, New York Times, Oct. 4, 1948, at 26.Google Scholar
publications depicting such crimes as the Lincoln assassination could be prohibited by the law. Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 501; People v. Dickey, No. CR-A-2528 (Cal. Super. Ct., App. Dep’t, Dec. 27, 1949).Google Scholar
Lincoln’s time and life that would be far more instructive.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 326; Wertham, What Parents Don’t Know about Comic Books, Ladies’ Home Journal, Nov. 1953, at 219.Google Scholar
at least fifty US cities would attempt to regulate the sale of comics. Hajdu, supra, at 150; Kutner, Lawrence and Olson, Cheryl K., Grand Theft Childhood 50 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2008). See Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 501–503; Crime Comics and the Constitution, supra, at 257–260.Google Scholar
or by withdrawing it afterwards.” Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 495–496.Google Scholar
efforts almost never saw the inside of a court. Calvert, Clay, Of Burning Houses and Roasting Pigs: Why Butler v. Michigan Remains a Key Free Speech Victory More Than a Half-Century Later, Fed. Comm. L. J. 247, 254 (2012).Google Scholar
anything blacklisted under this quasi-informal system. Calvert, supra, at 253; Wright, supra, at 98; Hajdu, supra, at 75–79; Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 495–496; Crime Comics and the Constitution, supra, at 243–244.Google Scholar
Indianapolis “persuaded” local news dealers to drop twenty-five comic book titles. Wright, supra, at 98.Google Scholar
to advise law enforcement agencies about which publications should be investigated or restricted. Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 495–496.Google Scholar
“legal proceedings which might impose limitations on these practices are extremely rare.” Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 496; Crime Comics and the Constitution, supra, at 243–244.Google Scholar
to strike down the renewed comic book ordinance under the First Amendment. Katzev v. County of Los Angeles, 52 Cal. 2d 360 (1959).Google Scholar
applied Winters and other Supreme Court precedent, and voided the law. Adams v. Hinkle, 51 Wash. 2d 763, 779 (Wash. 1958).Google Scholar
books like Catcher in the Rye, From Here to Eternity, and God’s Little Acre. Regulation of Comic Books, supra, at 504; Twomey, supra, at 621 n. 6.Google Scholar
a paperback novel, The Devil Rides Outside, to a Detroit police inspector. Calvert, supra, at 253–255.Google Scholar
“is to burn the house to roast the pig.” Butler v. Michigan, 352 US 380, 383 (1957).Google Scholar
striking down state laws regulating sale of comic books. Adams v. Hinkle, 51 Wash. 2d at 779.Google Scholar
functioned as an “instrument[] of regulation independent of the laws.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 US 58, 62–63 & n. 5, 67–70 (1963).Google Scholar
aimed at “the cause of a psychological mutilation of children.” Assem. Int. No. 2799, Pr. No. 2944. See Springhall, supra, at 132.Google Scholar
said that the bill violated the First Amendment. People v. Bookcase, Inc., 201 N.E.2d 14, 15–16 (NY 1964). See Wright, supra, at 157.Google Scholar
He had vetoed an earlier bill on the same grounds. Wright, supra, at 104–106; Sternheimer, supra, at 85.Google Scholar
the verdict has frequently been arrived at in advance.” Menand, Louis, The Horror, The New Yorker, Mar. 31, 2008 (www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/03/31/the-horror).Google Scholar
in some of the first ever televised congressional hearings. Hajdu, supra, at 171–174; Sternheimer, supra, at 61–63, 74, 85–87; Wright, supra, at 157.Google Scholar
was voted one of America’s ten most admired men. Special Committee on Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce, Notable Senate Investigations, US Senate Historical Office, Washington, DC (www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/investigations/Kefauver.htm).Google Scholar
“don’t you want to be vice president?” Hajdu, supra, at 172.Google Scholar
and public officials, such as FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. US Senate Special Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce, A Compilation of Information and Suggestions Submitted to the Special Senate Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce Relative to the Incidence of Possible Influence There-on of So-Called Crime Comic Books During the Five-Year Period 1945 to 1950, 81st Cong., 2nd Sess. (1950) (“1950 Special Committee Report”). See Hajdu, supra, at 172.Google Scholar
certainly not in the interests of the public.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 342.Google Scholar
if crime comic books of all types were not readily available to children.” 1950 Special Committee Report, supra, at 2–8 (Statement of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover).Google Scholar
no demonstrable connection between the reading of comic books and juvenile delinquency.” 1950 Special Committee Report, supra, at 109–114 (Statement of Hon. Louis Goldstein, Chairman, Board of County Judges, County Court, Kings County, Brooklyn, NY); Hajdu, supra, at 173.Google Scholar
“comics have very little to do with juvenile delinquency.” 1950 Special Committee Report, supra, at 191–192 (Statement of Dr. Harvey Zorbaugh, Professor of Education, New York University).Google Scholar
“no direct connection between the comic books dealing with crime and juvenile delinquency.” Crime and the Comics, New York Times, Nov. 14, 1950, at 30; Press, United, Comics Held No Factor in Delinquency, Washington Post, Nov. 12, 1950, at M20; Pinkley, Janet and Casey, Kaela, Graphic Novels: A Brief History and Overview for Library Managers, Library Leadership & Management, May 2013, at 5; Wright, supra, at 157.Google Scholar
Kefauver had developed a taste for the show. Sternheimer, supra, at 86–87; Wright, supra, at 157; Hajdu, supra, at 250–251.Google Scholar
“the increasing emphasis on sex and crime in public entertainment.” Hajdu, supra, at 250–251.Google Scholar
vetoed the bills on First Amendment grounds. Wright, supra, at 157.Google Scholar
in newspapers, and even on billboards across the USA. Menand, supra, (www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/03/31/the-horror); Pinkley & Casey, supra, at 5; Beaty, supra, at 155–156.Google Scholar
from Seduction of the Innocent. Hajdu, supra, at 228–230.Google Scholar
Comic Books – Blueprints for Delinquency. Wertham, Fredric, Comic Books – Blueprints for Delinquency, Reader’s Digest, May 1954, at 24–29.Google Scholar
described as the “primer of the American campaign” against comics. Nyberg, Amy Kiste, Seal of Approval: The History of the Comics Code 50 (University Press of Mississippi, 1998).Google Scholar
“an angry man, who has good reasons for anger.” C. Wright Mills, Nothing to Laugh At, New York Times, Apr. 25, 1954, at BR20.Google Scholar
the most difficult types of problems in the whole of social psychology.” Mills, supra, at BR20.Google Scholar
“a formidable indictment” against comics that was “practically unanswerable.” Sheerin, John B., Crime Comics Must Go!, Catholic World, Jun. 1954, at 162; Gibbs, Wolcott, Keep Those Paws to Yourself, Space-Rat!, The New Yorker, May 8, 1954, at 137; Wright, supra, at 164; Hajdu, supra, at 243–244.Google Scholar
most of his problematical behavior can be explained in terms of comic books.” Warshow, Robert S, The Study of Man: Paul, the Horror Comics, and Dr. Wertham, Commentary, Jun. 1, 1954; Sternheimer, supra, at 93.Google Scholar
“a tissue of troublesome points.” Denney, Reuel, The Dark Fantastic, New Republic, May 3, 1954, at 18–19; Hajdu, supra, at 242–243; Wright, supra, at 164.Google Scholar
his preconceived conclusions about comics. Springhall, supra, at 125; Nyberg, supra, at 96.Google Scholar
the conjectures are biased, unreliable, and useless.” Seduction of the Innocent: The Great Comic Book Scare, in Milestones in Mass Communication Research 262, 264 (Shearon Lowery and Melvin DeFleur, eds., 1983).Google Scholar
implicitly or explicitly assumed unmediated modeling effects.” Parsons, Patrick, Batman and His Audience: The Dialectic of Culture, in The Many Lives of the Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media 82 (Pearson, Roberta E. and Uricchio, William, eds., 1991); Nyberg, supra, at 85, 96–97.Google Scholar
“became perhaps disconnected from the kids that he was treating and observing.” Itzkoff, Dave, Scholar Finds Flaws in Work by Archenemy of Comics, New York Times, Feb. 23, 2013, at C1; Tilley, supra, at 383–413. Project MUSE, doi:10. 1353/lac. 2012. 0024; Rhodes, Dusty, BAM! WAP! KA-POW! Library Prof Bops Doc Who K.O.’d Comic Book Industry, Blog Post, Feb. 11, 2013 (http://news.illinois.edu/view/6367/204890); Sternheimer, supra, at 93–94.Google Scholar
three-quarters of the American public believed that comic books caused juvenile delinquency. Menand, supra (www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/03/31/the-horror).Google Scholar
“one of the great documents of legal and social philosophy of our time.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 330–333.Google Scholar
an example of “burn[ing] the house to roast the pig.” Butler, 352 US at 383.Google Scholar
“but I did think that there would be at least some kind of investigation.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 333, 340–342.Google Scholar
helped develop the questionnaire to be sent to experts. Nyberg, supra, at 54.Google Scholar
“strange” for vetoing anti-comics legislation on constitutional grounds. Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 343–351; Beaty, supra, at 156.Google Scholar
“real freedom of expression.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 386–389; Nyberg, supra, at 93.Google Scholar
the Democratic nomination for president in 1956. Nyberg, supra, at 53.Google Scholar
some of the experts it employed were consultants to comic-book publishers. Kinss, Peter, Senator Charges “Deceit” on Comics, New York Times, Apr. 23, 1954, at 29; Wright, supra, at 171.Google Scholar
providing body counts along the way. US Congress, Juvenile Delinquency (Comic Books): Hearings before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 4–10 (Apr. 21–22 and Jun. 24, 1954) (“1954 Senate Hearings”) (Statement of Richard Clendenen); Nyberg, supra, at 56–57; Wright, supra, at 165–166; Hajdu, supra, at 257–260.Google Scholar
“incontrovertible evidence of the pernicious influences on youth of crime comic books.” 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 81–82 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham).Google Scholar
any doubt of his status as a doctor. Hajdu, supra, at 263.Google Scholar
“on this subject there is practically no controversy.” 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 16–17, 81–82 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham); Nyberg, supra, at 20.Google Scholar
The same thing with crime.” 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 87 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham).Google Scholar
“teach complete contempt of the police” 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 85 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham).Google Scholar
Must you not take into account the neighbor’s children?” 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 84 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham).Google Scholar
“Hitler was a beginner compared to the comic-book industry,” he proclaimed. 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 95 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham). See Wright, supra, at 166–167.Google Scholar
to help members nudge the doctor toward more mainstream views. Nyberg, supra, at 77.Google Scholar
should be measured in the “thousands.” 1954 Senate Hearings, at 93 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham).Google Scholar
“investigating” Communists in the US Army. Beaty, supra, at 156.Google Scholar
an effort to forestall any inquiry into the comic book industry. 1954 Senate Hearings at 58–59, 108. See Wright, supra, at 169; Hajdu, supra, at 260.Google Scholar
claimed that the Tennessee Democrat was “coddling Communists.” 1954 Senate Hearings, at 92; Nyberg, supra, at 74–75.Google Scholar
as it would to explain the sublimity of love to a frigid old maid.” 1954 Senate Hearings at 97–98 (Testimony of William Gaines).Google Scholar
How could it be worse? 1954 Senate Hearings at 103 (Testimony of William Gaines). See Hajdu, supra, at 265–271; Wright, supra, at 167–171.Google Scholar
including in a front-page New York Times story. Kihss, Peter, No Harm in Horror, Comics Issuer Says, Comics Publisher Sees No Harm in Horror, Discounts “Good Taste,” New York Times, Apr. 22, 1954, at 1; Horror Comics, Time, May 31, 1954, at 78; Nyberg, supra, at 62–63; Wright, supra, at 168–169; Hajdu, supra, at 271–272; Beaty, supra, at 159.Google Scholar
adopting a “voluntary” code of self-regulation. Nyberg, supra, at 79; Wright, supra, at 169.Google Scholar
at least in the short term, would disrupt the comics industry. Comic Books and Juvenile Delinquency, Interim Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, S. Rep. No. 84-62, at 1, 7, 23, 32 (1955) (“Senate Report”).Google Scholar
“[a] competent job of self-policing within the industry will achieve much.” 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 310; Nyberg, supra, at 79.Google Scholar
Murphy would serve as the “comics czar.” Wright, supra, at 172–173; Nyberg, supra, at 83–84; Beaty, supra, at 161–162.Google Scholar
but he turned it down. Nyberg, supra, at 110; Hajdu, supra, at 285–286.Google Scholar
after the inking stage to ensure that they conformed. Hajdu, supra, at 291–292; Nyberg, supra, at 166–169.Google Scholar
prior approval by code authorities. Doherty, Thomas, Hollywood’s Censor: Joseph I. Breen & the Production Code Administration 31–37, 41–47 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
in substantial part a paraphrase of the Hays Office code. Doherty, supra, at 342.Google Scholar
only three publishers remained as members. Nyberg, supra, at 35–36, 104–106, 165; Wright, supra, at 103–104p; Hajdu, supra, at 129–131.Google Scholar
who refused to carry nonapproved comics. Nyberg, supra, at 127–128; Wright, supra, at 173–174.Google Scholar
rejected 126 stories and 5,656 individual drawings. Wright, supra, at 174; Hajdu, supra, at 286–287.Google Scholar
purged from the industry, and they were. Springhall, supra, at 140.Google Scholar
gone by the following year. Beaty, supra, at 161; Springhall, supra, at 140–141.Google Scholar
to focus his energies on Mad magazine. Hajdu, supra, at 287–290; Sternheimer, supra, at 90.Google Scholar
declined by more than half. Hajdu, supra, at 314–315, 326–327; Sternheimer, supra, at 99.Google Scholar
and associated employees lost their jobs as a result. Menand, supra; Hajdu, supra, at 337–351.Google Scholar
that lacked CMAA’s seal of approval. Hajdu, supra, at 295–303.Google Scholar
no new publishers entered the comic book market. Nyberg, supra, at 124–128.Google Scholar
brought under control by voluntary compliance with the code of ethics.” Sternheimer, supra, at 90.Google Scholar
Senators are more informed about subversion than about perversion.” Fredric Wertham, It’s Still Murder, The Saturday Review of Literature, Apr. 9, 1955, at 11.Google Scholar
for the proposition that “True freedom is regulation.” Wertham, It’s Still Murder, supra, at 11, 46–48. See Beaty, supra, at 163–164.Google Scholar
“I detest censorship.” 1954 Senate Hearings, supra, at 91 (Testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham).Google Scholar
actually not democracy; it is anarchy.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent at 326–327.Google Scholar
“moral bankruptcy in publishers hiding behind the First Amendment.” Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at vii. (introduction to 2004 ed. by James E. Reibman).Google Scholar
can be construed in any way as a threat to free expression for adults.” Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at xi–xi n. 17 (introduction to 2004 ed. by James E. Reibman).Google Scholar
was angered by those who called him a censor. Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at xxvii (introduction to 2004 ed. by James E. Reibman).Google Scholar
professed opponent of censorship.” Wright, supra, at 98. See also Hajdu, supra, at 99.Google Scholar
“[c]rime comics are a severe test of the liberalism of liberals.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 339.Google Scholar
“think in terms of general precaution and spray the whole field.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at 2–3.Google Scholar
“the devil’s ally.” Tilley, supra, at 407.Google Scholar
“one of the most iconic censors in modern history.” Tilley, supra, at 391; Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, History of Comics Censorship, Part 1 (http://cbldf.org/resources/history-of-comics-censorship/history-of-comics-censorship-part-1/).Google Scholar
The rest of his career was described almost as an afterthought. Webster, Bayard, Fredric Wertham, 86, Dies; Foe of Violent TV and Comics, New York Times, Dec. 1, 1981.Google Scholar
social science communities, cultural critics, and comic book fans. Beaty, supra, at 207.Google Scholar
unfairly blamed for the demise of comic books. Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at xxix (introduction to 2004 ed. by James E. Reibman).Google Scholar
stature as a scholar has been erased. Beaty, supra, at 3, 195–197.Google Scholar
the censorious, the narrow-minded, and the ill-informed.” Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at xxviii (introduction to 2004 ed. by James E. Reibman).Google Scholar
even falsified evidence to support his dubious conclusions. Tilley, supra, at 386.Google Scholar
collects and preserves covers of the many comics he condemned. Seduction of the Innocent (www.lostsoti.org/).Google Scholar
including numerous unflattering portrayals in comics. Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at xxix (introduction to 2004 ed. by James E. Reibman). See Seduction of the Innocent (www.lostsoti.org/).Google Scholar
reprinted in other books at least four times over the following decades. See Seduction of the Innocent (www.lostsoti.org/).Google Scholar
kept a framed copy of the Mad article in his office. Beaty, supra, at 104–105.Google Scholar
Wonder Woman creator William Moulton Marston. Seduction of the Innocent (www.lostsoti.org/).Google Scholar
“For Heaven’s sake, gentlemen, let us move on.” Chabon, Michael, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay 613–616 (2000).Google Scholar
illegal drug use, explicit sexuality, and even horror. Sabin, Roger, Going Underground, Comics, Comix & Graphic Novels: A History of Graphic Art (London: Phaidon Press, 1996), 92, 94–95, 103–107, 110, 111, 116, 119, 124–126, 128; Wikipedia, Underground Comix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_comix).Google Scholar
We could do whatever we wanted.” Sabin, Going Underground, supra.Google Scholar
including works by Crumb and others. Paul Richard, Walter Hopps, Museum Man with a Talent for Talent, Washington Post, Mar. 22, 2005.Google Scholar
a darker and more sophisticated form of graphic storytelling. Mercier, Sebastian T., “Truth, Justice and the American Way”: The Intersection of American Youth Culture and Superhero Narratives, 1 Iowa Historical Review 21, 49–58 (2008).Google Scholar
by 2011 the organization ceased to exist. Comics Code Authority, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority#Abandonment).Google Scholar
Peter Cushing and Joan Collins as characters in the various stories. IMDb, Tales from the Crypt (www.imdb.com/title/tt0069341/).Google Scholar
Tales from the Crib, by Canadian band d.b.s. Dixon, Wheeler Winston and Graham, Richard, A Brief History of Comic Book Movies 13 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017); Tales from the Crypt, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tales_from_the_Crypt).Google Scholar
Zorro, Tarzan, and Flash Gordon. Dixon and Graham, supra, at 1–3.Google Scholar
the many television series that were spun off. List of Films Based on English-Language Comics, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_English-language_comics).Google Scholar
that together pulled $3.4 billion globally. Cavna, Michael and Betancourt, David, An All-Inclusive Wakanda: Kids and “Black Panther” Costumes, Washington Post, Oct. 31, 2018, at C1, C3.Google Scholar
grossing $1.2 billion worldwide its opening weekend. Cavna, Michael, Record $1.2 Billion Debut for “Avengers: Endgame,” Washington Post, Apr. 29, 2019, at C1.Google Scholar
and the University of Toronto, among others worldwide. E.g., University of Florida Comics Studies, Department of English (www.english.ufl.edu/comics/study.shtml); University of Toronto, Visual Culture Studies (www.utm.utoronto.ca/dvs/programs/visual-culture-studies).Google Scholar
collections of underground comics. E.g., Moore Collection of Underground Comix, Robert E. Kennedy Library, California Polytechnic State University (http://lib.calpoly.edu/support/findingaids/ms052-moore-comix/); Frank Stack Collection, University of Missouri Libraries (http://libraryguides.missouri.edu/stack).Google Scholar
which has been held annually since 1995. International Comic Arts Forum (www.internationalcomicartsforum.org/about-icaf.html).Google Scholar
teachers and librarians likewise attend comic book conventions. Tilley, supra, at 405.Google Scholar
grossed more than $17.5 billion globally. Remington, Alexander F. and Cavna, Michael, Marvel Star Gave Spider-Man His Angst, Iron Man His Snark, Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2018, at A22; Cavna, Michael, Stan Lee: A Marvel to Behold, Washington Post, Nov. 13, 2018, at C1.Google Scholar
so that “the whole issue can be brought to the attention of the American people.” Record Labeling, Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., Sept. 19, 1985, at 1 (Statement of Chairman John C. Danforth) (“Record Labeling Hearing”).Google Scholar
“half the original 20 PMRC members [were] married to 10% of the Senate.” McDougal, Dennis, “Porn Rock”: The Sound Draws Fury, LA Times, Nov. 1, 1985.Google Scholar
and had gotten nowhere with the record companies. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 88, 92 (Statement Millie Waterman, National PTA Vice President for Legislative Activity); Pareles, John, Debate Spurs Hearing on Rating Rock Lyrics, New York Times, Sept. 18, 1985.Google Scholar
commitments from twenty-four RIAA members, who collectively released 80 percent of prerecorded music sold in the USA, to put warning labels on record albums. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 95, 99 (Statement of Stanley Gortikov, President of the Recording Industry Association of America).Google Scholar
He chided them, “Ladies, how dare you?” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 53 (Statement of Frank Zappa).Google Scholar
Or, as Zappa asked simply, “Is this private action?” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 58.Google Scholar
such a “voluntary” initiative “in no way infringes on First Amendment rights.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 67.Google Scholar
her organization “would in no way encourage nor support censorship of the music industry.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 89, 91 (Statement Millie Waterman, National PTA Vice President for Legislative Activity).Google Scholar
there was “zero chance of legislation.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 89, 91.Google Scholar
under the “classic legal definition,” only “prior restraint of publication constitutes censorship.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 4 (Opening Statement of Senator Paul S. Trible, Jr.).Google Scholar
First Amendment abridgments may come in many forms, and not just by previous restraint. Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697 (1931).Google Scholar
not seeking “a Government role of any kind whatsoever.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 4 (Opening Statement of Senator Albert Gore, Jr.).Google Scholar
“may well be the most important hearing conducted by the Commerce Committee this year.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 4 (Opening Statement of Senator Paul S. Trible, Jr.).Google Scholar
what is the reason for these hearings in front of the Commerce Committee?” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 49.Google Scholar
“I want to hold that threat … over the head [of those] trying to accomplish some free enterprise volunteerism that most people have agreed to.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 72.Google Scholar
“trying our level best to limit and control [this music] as best we can, for the tender young ears of America.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 2–3 (Opening Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings).Google Scholar
we are going to be forced somewhere with regulations, through the FCC or otherwise.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 68–70.Google Scholar
certain four-letter words, and did not offend the producer’s sense of art in the production itself.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 60, 76–77.Google Scholar
an effort “to balance the need for voluntary industry restraint with a strong sensitivity to first amendment concerns.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 132–133 (Statement of Edward O. Fritts, President, National Association of Broadcasters).Google Scholar
some form of legislation may be appropriate.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 135–138 (Statement of William J. Steding, Executive Vice President, Central Broadcast Division, Bonneville International Corp.).Google Scholar
to exercise “responsibility” in deciding whether to air “drug-oriented” music. In re Licensee Responsibility to Review Records Before Their Broadcast, 28 FCC 2d 409 (1971), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC 2d 377 (1971), Reconsideration denied, 31 FCC 2d 385 (1971).Google Scholar
to “discourage, if not eliminate, the playing of records which tend to promote and/or glorify the use of illegal drugs.” In re Licensee Responsibility to Review Records Before Their Broadcast, 28 FCC 2d at 410 (Statement of Commissioner Robert E. Lee). See Yale Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 478 F. 2d at 603 (Bazelon, C. J.) (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).Google Scholar
and the whimsical “Puff, the Magic Dragon” by folk trio Peter, Paul and Mary. Fong-Torres, Ben, FCC Discovers Dope, Does Darndest Thing, Rolling Stone, Apr. 1, 1971. See Blanchard, Margaret A., The American Urge to Censor: Freedom of Expression Versus the Desire to Sanitize Society – From Anthony Comstock to 2 Live Crew, 33 William & Mary Law. Rev. 741, 806 (1992).Google Scholar
“the management could not interpret the lyrics.” Yale Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 478 F. 2d at 603 (Bazelon, C. J.) (dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); Wheeler, Tom, Drug Lyrics, the FCC, and the First Amendment, 5 Loyola Law. Rev. 329, 348 (1972); Blanchard, supra, at 806.Google Scholar
“could jeopardize his license by failing to exercise licensee responsibility in this area.” Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC 2d at 379.Google Scholar
songs that in the Commission’s judgment were somehow ‘drug-related.’” Yale Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 414 US 914 (1973) (Douglas, J.) (dissenting from denial of certiorari).Google Scholar
“We’re Not Gonna Take It” by Twisted Sister. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 10–17, 85.Google Scholar
the band members of Twisted Sister who proceed to discipline “daddy.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 10, 14, 85.Google Scholar
“I looked into that.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 2 (Opening Statement of Senator Ernest F. Hollings).Google Scholar
to compensate the industry for music piracy. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 53.Google Scholar
in a committee chaired by Strom Thurmond. McDougal, Dennis, “Porn Rock”: The Sound Draws Fury, LA Times, Nov. 1, 1985; Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 18; Goldstein, Patrick, Parents Warn: Take the Sex and Shock Out of Rock, LA Times, Aug. 25, 1985; Pond, Steve, Industry Said Fearful of PMRC’s Sway, Washington Post, Oct. 30, 1985 (www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1985/10/30/industry-said-fearful-of-pmrcs-sway/1194b3f8-8255-4f25-a7d3-235161ae14fa/?utm_term=.f228d0705c81).Google Scholar
Mrs. Thurmond, as it turned out, was a PMRC member. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 53; McDougal, Dennis, “Porn Rock”: The Sound Draws Fury, LA Times, Nov. 1, 1985.Google Scholar
Tipper Gore would later refer to Gortikov as her “secret ally” in the record industry. Cockburn, Alexander and Jeffrey, St. Clair, Al Gore: A User’s Manual 102–103 (London: Verso Press, 2000).Google Scholar
such bands as AC/DC, Twisted Sister, Ozzie Osbourne, Judas Priest, KISS, Great White, WASP, and Mötley Crüe. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 13–17 (Statement of Jeff Ling).Google Scholar
to “needlessly use expressions that may be in bad taste.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 2 (Statement of Chairman Danforth).Google Scholar
Golden Showers.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 17 (Statement of Jeff Ling).Google Scholar
it had previewed the material for committee members before the hearing. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 2 (Statement of Senator Hollings).Google Scholar
it was not the most pleasant of experiences to read some of the lyrics in public.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 51.Google Scholar
described the lyrics as “poison.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 5–10, 50 (Statement of Senator Paula Hawkins).Google Scholar
Thank you. I think that statement tells the story to this committee.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 61.Google Scholar
a young man in a small Texas town “took his life while listening to the music of AC/DC.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 11–12.Google Scholar
“Absolutely,” she responded. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 48.Google Scholar
that the Night Stalker was a “fan” of AC/DC. Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 13–14.Google Scholar
“I think it has great effect.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 46.Google Scholar
but not to the levels that existed in the mid-1980s. Centers for Disease Control, QuickStats: Suicide Rates for Teens Aged 15–19 Years, by Sex – United States, 1975–2015 (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/66/wr/mm6630a6.htm).Google Scholar
among the most frequently cited correlates, among numerous factors. Teenage Suicide in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_suicide_in_the_United_States); Causes of Teen Suicides (www.buzzle.com/articles/facts-about-teen-suicide-causes-of-teenage-suicide.html#causes); Robert Olson, Suicide, Rock Music and Moral Panics, Centre for Suicide Prevention (www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/musicandsuicide/).Google Scholar
has never been listed by legitimate researchers as a “cause” of teen suicide. Scheel, K. R. and Westefeld, J. S.. Heavy Metal Music and Adolescent Suicidality: An Empirical Investigation, Adolescence 253–273 (Summer, 1999); Litman, R. and Farberow, N., Pop-Rock Music as Precipitating Cause in Youth Suicide, 39 Journal of Forensic Sciences 494–499 (1994).Google Scholar
the rate at which teens have sex or have abortions has declined as well. Eileen Patten and Livingston, Gretchen, Why Is the Teen Birth Rate Falling? Pew Research Center (Apr. 29, 2016) (www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/29/why-is-the-teen-birth-rate-falling/).Google Scholar
that the crime rate for rape was cut in half between 1975 and 1985. Sternheimer, Karen, Pop Culture Panics 126 (New York: Routledge, 2015).Google Scholar
“[s]ubtleties, suggestions, and innuendo” had been replaced by “descriptions of often violent sexual acts, drug taking, and flirtations with the occult.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 6.Google Scholar
the media’s impact on children as “historically unique.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 12.Google Scholar
categorically different from previous forms of popular music.” Record Labeling Hearing, supra, at 117 (statement of Dr. Joe Stuessy).Google Scholar
should be “suppressed by press and pulpit.” Semonche, John E., Censoring Sex: A Historical Journey Through American Media 144 (Lanham, MD: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007).Google Scholar
“take a united stand against the Ragtime Evil as we would against bad literature.” See, e.g., Blecha, Peter, Taboo Tunes: A History of Banned Bands & Censored Songs 17 (San Francisco: Backstreet Books, 2004).Google Scholar
those convicted of being “jazzily intoxicated shall go before the Superior Court and be sent to an insane asylum.” Blecha, supra, at 23.Google Scholar
Mass-staria! Meredith Willson, Ya Got Trouble, The Music Man (1957).Google Scholar
only the instrumental version of Cole Porter’s “Love for Sale” could be aired. Blanchard, supra, at 824.Google Scholar
Asbury Park, New Jersey, Santa Cruz, California, and Birmingham, Alabama. Sternheimer, supra, at 105.Google Scholar
who opined that rock and roll was a “contagious disease.” “Rock ’n’ Roll” Stage Show Frantic, Noisy, LA Times, Nov. 4, 1955, B9.Google Scholar
called rock “cannibalistic and tribalistic,” comparing it to a “communicable disease.” Altschuler, Glenn C., All Shook Up: How Rock ’n’ Roll Changed America 6 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
“primitive quasi-music that can be traced back to prehistoric cultures.” Sternheimer, supra, at 112. See Renowned Psychiatrist Francis Braceland Dies, LA Times, Feb. 28, 1985; Pace, Eric, Jules Masserman, 89, Leader of Psychiatric Group, Is Dead, New York Times, Nov. 15, 1994, D29.Google Scholar
the world’s most famous rock ’n’ roll song. Marsh, Dave, Louie Louie (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1995/2004).Google Scholar
How can we stamp out this menace? ? ? ? Letter from complainant (name redacted) to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, Feb. 7, 1964 (reprinted in Eric Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie” (1984) (collection of FBI reports obtained through FOIA request).Google Scholar
he announced a statewide ban on both radio play and live performances of the song. Faggen, Gil, Indiana Gov. Puts Down ‘Pornographic’ Wand Tune, Billboard, Feb. 1, 1964, at 3. See Marsh, supra, at 124–125; Blecha, supra, at 98.Google Scholar
to make sure that the record was not played in his state.). Petridis, Alexis, Louie, Louie: The Ultimate Rock Rebel Anthem, The Guardian, Jan. 23, 2014 (www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jan/23/louie-louie-ultimate-rock-rebel-anthem). See Marsh, supra, at 124–125.Google Scholar
involved efforts by six FBI field offices, several US attorneys, and the FCC into the supposedly corrupting lyrics of “Louie, Louie.” See Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
involved (although this may have been a subconscious nod to Anthony Comstock). Marsh, supra, at 114–138.Google Scholar
and therefore could not make any decision concerning the matter.” Letter to SAC, Tampa, Feb. 28, 1964, Re: Phonograph Record “Louie, Louie.” Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
no one knows for sure how it all started. Marsh, supra, at 118.Google Scholar
“with this type of rock and roll music, a listener might think he heard anything being said that he imagined.” FBI Memo, Nov. 2, 1965. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
“it is obvious [that] the lyrics to this record are not pornographic or objectionable in any way.” FBI LA Field Office Memo, Aug. 31, 1965. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
Get that Broad out of here! Lyric sheet submitted to FBI Laboratories along with recording of Louie, Louie, Mar. 27, 1964. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
they had heard something “bad,” no matter what words had been sung. Letter to J. Edgar Hoover from [identity redacted], Jun. 18, 1965. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
Poison for Our Youth, and Combatting Merchants of Filth: The Role of the FBI. Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to [identity redacted], Jun. 25, 1965. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
“by no stretch of the imagination is the obscene lyric audible.” Letter to J. Edgar Hoover from [identity redacted], Jul. 14, 1965. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
“nothing derogatory concerning correspondent.” Report to FBI Director from Detroit Office, Jul. 20, 1965; Letter from J. Edgar Hoover to [identity redacted], Jul. 27, 1965. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
memo from the FBI Labs to the New York office returning the recording and lyrics sheet. Memo to SAC New York, Oct. 10, 1966. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra.Google Scholar
the accidentally improvised expletive stayed in, indistinct and in the background. Marsh, supra, at 97. See Masnick, Mike, FBI Spent Years “Researching” the Lyrics to “Louie, Louie” Before Realizing the Copyright Office Must Have Them, Tech Dirt, May 6, 2015 (www.techdirt.com/articles/20150503/22075130880/fbi-spent-years-researching-lyrics-to-louie-louie-before-realizing-copyright-office-must-have-them.shtml); Crawford, Anwen, Is This the Dirtiest Song of the Sixties? The New Yorker, May 6, 2015 (www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/jack-ely-louie-louie-the-dirtiest-song-of-the-sixties).Google Scholar
offered a $1,000 reward to anyone who could substantiate the reported obscenity. FBI Memorandum, Sept. 7, 1965. Predoehl, The FBI Investigation of the Song “Louie, Louie,” supra; Marsh, supra, at 137–138.Google Scholar
“[i]f a record isn’t played at the suggestion of the state’s chief executive, it has been banned.” Marsh, supra, at 124–125; Was ‘Louie, Louie’ Banned in Indiana? (www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/Localgov/Topics/Essays/Louie_Louie.htm).Google Scholar
Superintendent Dawning ultimately relented. Petridis, supra; Semonche, supra, at 138–142.Google Scholar
a public official’s constitutional obligation not to succumb to a heckler’s veto were factors. Eric Predoehl, The Marching Band Story, The Louie Report Blog (www.louielouie.net/blog/?p=4); Eric Predoehl, Follow-up on the Michigan Marching Band Story, The Louie Report Blog (www.louielouie.net/blog/?p=15).Google Scholar
Washington Governor Christine Gregoire danced to the tune at her Inaugural Ball in 2005. Louie, Louie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Louie); Abbott, Jim, “Louie, Louie” Still Fighting Bad Image, The Spokesman-Review, May 22, 2005 (www.heraldpalladium.com/localnews/louie-louie-still-banned-for-benton-harbor-band/article_d046b4b7-b6f6-54f4-a74d-514ab4bdcc0e.html).Google Scholar
in Washington, DC, Klan members decked out in their robes and hoods picketed a Beatles concert. Blecha, supra, at 42–44; Sternheimer, supra, at 120–121; Stephens, Randall J., The Devil’s Music 102–145 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
ordered the wholesale burning of Jewish and Arabic texts. Corn-Revere, Robert, Bonfires of Insanity: A History of Book Burnings from Nazis to ISIS, The Daily Beast, Feb. 28, 2015 (www.thedailybeast.com/bonfires-of-insanity-a-history-of-book-burnings-from-nazis-to-isis). See generally Bosmajian, Haig, Burning Books (London: McFarland & Co., 2006).Google Scholar
Similar events were held throughout Germany in the 1930s and 1940s. Corn-Revere, supra; Bosmajian, supra, at 212.Google Scholar
claimed to have destroyed ten million dollars’ worth of records and tapes. Blecha, supra, at 46; Sternheimer, supra, at 122–124; Samole, Shoshana D., Rock & Roll Control: Censoring Music Lyrics in the ’90s, Ent. & Sports Law Rev. 175, 176 (1995–1996); Cockburn and St. Clair, supra, at 109.Google Scholar
getting “the rock ’n[’] roll wrecking ball swinging in the right direction.” Cockburn and St. Clair, supra, at 109.Google Scholar
to eliminate “all immoral and foreign racial elements in the arts.” Sternheimer, supra, at 108; Blecha, supra, at 23.Google Scholar
described as “hot music,” from the air. Blecha, supra, at 24.Google Scholar
“jungle music,” “cannibalistic,” and “primitive.” Sternheimer, supra, at 110–115; Blecha, supra, at 25–27.Google Scholar
classified by Billboard magazine as “race records.” Sternheimer, supra, at 109.Google Scholar
pull the white man down to the level of the negro.” Blecha, supra, at 25.Google Scholar
focused on their real concerns by banning interracial dancing. Altschuler, supra, at 20–21; Sternheimer, supra, at 110; Blecha, supra, at 31.Google Scholar
the unwelcome attention of policymakers. Blanchard, supra, at 827–830.Google Scholar
had been introduced in more than twenty states. Music Lyrics and Commerce, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (Feb. 11, 1994) (“Gangsta Rap Hearings I”), at 2.Google Scholar
more black males in jail than we have in college.” Gangsta Rap Hearings I, supra, at 5 (testimony of C. Delores Tucker).Google Scholar
“more important to ban speech that is dehumanizing to women than to protect free speech.” Gangsta Rap Hearings I, supra, at 6 (testimony of C. Delores Tucker).Google Scholar
to confiscate or detain materials from more than half of the feminist bookstores in that country. Strossen, Nadine, Defending Pornography 229–244 (Scribner: New York, 1995).Google Scholar
“something must be done to stop the production of violent, misogynistic material.” Gangsta Rap Hearings I, supra, at 4 (statement of Hon. Cliff Stearns).Google Scholar
almost as an afterthought. Music Lyrics and Commerce, Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer Protection, and Competitiveness of the House Energy and Commerce Committee (May 5, 1994) (“Gangsta Rap Hearings II”), at 129–132 (testimony of Hillary Rosen).Google Scholar
if “a parent wants his child to listen to this music, that is a parent’s responsibility.” Gangsta Rap Hearings II, at 73; Gangsta Rap Hearings I, supra, at 56–57.Google Scholar
“evil propaganda stands virtually unopposed in today’s public debate over rap music.” Gangsta Rap Hearings II, at 63–65 (statement of Rep. Maxine Waters).Google Scholar
“these companies have the blood of children on their hands.” Blecha, supra, at 172–173; Bivins, Jason C., Religion of Fear: The Politics of Horror in Conservative Evangelism 121–122 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Hinckley, David, Rap Takes the Rap for Our Real Problems, New York Daily News, Jun. 4, 1996 (www.nydailynews.com/archives/nydn-features/rap-takes-rap-real-problems-article-1.716781).Google Scholar
“little boys are raping little girls.” Glassner, Barry, The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things 122–123 (New York: Basic Books, 1999).Google Scholar
Gingrich urged people to boycott radio stations that played any rap music at all. Blecha, supra, at 172–173; Bivins, supra, at 121–122; Hinckley, supra; Landler, Mark, Coalition Challenges Time Warner over Gangsta Rap, New York Times, Jun. 1, 1995, at B10.Google Scholar
there is a danger [that] those very rights will be endangered.” Blecha, supra, at 173–174.Google Scholar
the use (or misuse) of ratings in the entertainment industry constituted a “deceptive trade practice.” Federal Trade Commission, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Review of Self-Regulation and Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries (Sept. 2000) (“FTC Ratings Report”); Federal Trade Commission, Marketing Violent Entertainment to Children: A Six-Month Follow-up Review of Industry Practices in the Motion Picture, Music Recording & Electronic Game Industries (Apr. 2001) (“FTC Ratings Follow-up”).Google Scholar
guide their children’s exposure to entertainment media with violent content.” Letter from Chairman Robert Pitofsky to Senator John McCain, Nov. 20, 2000; FTC Ratings Follow-up, at iii.Google Scholar
mandatory uniform ratings scheme for labeling “violent content in audio and visual media products.” S. 792, Media Marketing Accountability Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. 1916, The 21st Century Media Responsibility Act of 2001, 107th Cong., 1st Sess.Google Scholar
The proposed bills were withdrawn in response to the new agreement. Blanchard, supra, at 826–827; Gaertner, David P., 2 Live Crew and Judge Gonzales Too – 2 Live Crew and the Miller Obscenity Test, 18 J. Legislation 105, 107, 113 (1991).Google Scholar
he put his law practice on hold to make sure that foul-mouthed rappers would be put behind bars. Chuck, Philips, The “Batman” Who Took On Rap: Obscenity: Lawyer Jack Thompson Put His Practice on Hold to Concentrate on Driving 2 Live Crew Out of Business. In Southern Florida, He Is Loved and Loathed, LA Times, Jun. 18, 1990 (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-06-18/entertainment/ca-87_1_jack-thompson); Jack Thompson (activist), Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(activist)).Google Scholar
and to prosecutors and sheriffs’ departments throughout Florida. Schwartz, Hunter, 25 Years Ago, 2 Live Crew Were Arrested for Obscenity. Here’s the Fascinating Back Story, Washington Post, Jun. 11, 2015 (www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/11/25-years-ago-2-live-crew-were-arrested-for-obscenity-heres-the-fascinating-back-story/?noredirect=on&utm_term=eb19a003c8fd).Google Scholar
promptly withdrawn from store shelves throughout the county. Gaertner, supra, at 106.Google Scholar
but the 2 Live Crew album was found to be legally obscene. Skyywalker Records, Inc. v. Navarro, 739 F. Supp. 578 (S. D. Fla. 1990), rev’d sub nom, Luke Records, Inc. v. Navarro, 960 F. 2d 134 (1992), cert. denied, 506 US 1022 (1992). See Parker, Laura, Federal Judge Finds Rap LP Obscene, Washington Post, Jun. 7, 1990, at A1.Google Scholar
“should address their petitions to the Florida Legislature, not to this court.” Skyywalker Records, Inc., 739 F. Supp. at 586.Google Scholar
“It is an appeal directed to ‘dirty’ thoughts and the loins, not to the intellect and the mind.” Skyywalker Records, Inc., 739 F. Supp. at 589–591.Google Scholar
whether a work “lacks serious artistic, scientific, literary or political value.” Luke Records, Inc., 960 F. 2d at 138.Google Scholar
no work of music alone may be declared obscene.” Luke Records, Inc., 960 F. 2d at 135.Google Scholar
a county court judge dismissed criminal charges brought against a retailer for selling the album. Gaertner, supra, at 105–110; Schwartz, supra; Blanchard, supra, at 831.Google Scholar
holding that it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Atlantic Beach Casino, Inc. v. Morenzoni, 749 F. Supp. 38, 39 (D.R.I. 1990).Google Scholar
like “a freight train finally running out of steam.” Schwartz, supra.Google Scholar
a prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment and that its procedures violated due process. Soundgarden v. Eikenberry, 123 Wash. 2d 750, 777–778 (1994) (en banc).Google Scholar
could cause a person to perceive the message and act on it. Vance v. Judas Priest, 1990 WL 130920 *19 (Nev. Dist. Ct.).Google Scholar
could not be considered an incitement. Waller v. Osbourne, 763 F. Supp. 1144, 1149 (M. D. Ga. 1991), aff’d mem. 958 F. 2d (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 US 916 (1992).Google Scholar
her 1987 book Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society. Siegel, Robert, Tipper Gore and Family Values, All Things Considered, Jan. 11, 2005 (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4279560?storyId=4279560).Google Scholar
Sorry, cancel that last conclusion.” Reesman, Bryan, 25 Years after Tipper Gore’s PMRC Hearings, the Opposing Sides Aren’t So Far Apart, Vulture, Sept. 20, 2010 (www.vulture.com/2010/09/pmrc_25_anniversary.html).Google Scholar
“irony in its purest form.” Schonfeld, Zach, Parental Advisory Forever: An Oral History of the PMRC’s War on Dirty Lyrics, Newsweek, Sept. 19, 2015 (www.newsweek.com/2015/10/09/oral-history-tipper-gores-war-explicit-rock-lyrics-dee-snider-373103.html).Google Scholar
control over what their children see and hear.” Grow, Kory, Tipper Gore Reflects on PMRC 30 Years Later, Rolling Stone, Sept. 14, 2015 (www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/tipper-gore-reflects-on-pmrc-30-years-later-57862/).Google Scholar
and claimed that they’d both had reservations about it. Ifill, Gwen, Gores Change Tune on Rock-Lyric Hearings, Washington Post, Nov. 5, 1987 (www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/11/05/gores-change-tune-on-rock-lyric-hearings/ad8b1435-c301-46aa-8138-46e618c4508b/?utm_term=157a924da95b); Cockburn and St. Clair, supra, at 107–108.Google Scholar
“promoting suicide and all the other things we have heard about here.” Cockburn and St. Clair, supra, at 101, 108–109. Record Labeling Hearings, supra, at 4–5, 70–71, 111–114.Google Scholar
asking if it was alright to laugh in the jury box. Rappers Released (Editorial), Washington Post, Oct. 28, 1990, at C6.Google Scholar
was thinking about buying it after the trial and attending a 2 Live Crew show. Laura Parker, Rap Group Acquitted in Florida, Washington Post, Oct. 21, 1990, at A1.Google Scholar
recorded clearly and audibly in standard American English.” Zach Schonfeld, Does the Parental Advisory Label Still Matter? Newsweek, Nov. 10, 2015 (www.newsweek.com/does-parental-advisory-label-still-matter-tipper-gore-375607).Google Scholar
contains street language and sexual innuendo.” Harrington, Richard, The Sticker, Selling Records, Washington Post, Oct. 31, 1990, at C7.Google Scholar
more than a million copies even before the title was released. Blanchard, supra, at 830; Gone Platinum, Newsweek, Jul. 30, 1990, at 57.Google Scholar
likewise soared to the top of the charts. Schonfeld, Zach, Does the Parental Advisory Label Still Matter? Newsweek, Nov. 10, 2015 (www.newsweek.com/does-parental-advisory-label-still-matter-tipper-gore-375607).Google Scholar
like landline phones or TV guides.” Schonfeld, supra.Google Scholar
private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons.” Minow, Newton N, Television and the Public Interest, Speech delivered at the National Association of Broadcasters Convention, Washington, DC, May 9, 1961 (the “Vast Wasteland Speech”).Google Scholar
by people you wouldn’t have in your home.” The Portable Curmudgeon 268–269 (Jon Winokur, ed., New York: New American Library, 1987).Google Scholar
upheld the federal government’s authority to regulate broadcasting content. FCC v. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., 395 US 367 (1969).Google Scholar
“[T]elevision is democracy at its ugliest.” The Portable Curmudgeon, supra, at 269–270.Google Scholar
enjoy too often what commissioners and columnists abhor.” Krattenmaker, Thomas G. and Powe, L. A., Jr., Converging First Amendment Principles for Converging Communications Media, 104 Yale Law J. 1719, 1725–1726 (May 1995).Google Scholar
to refer to Minow as the “culture czar.” Cantor, Paul A, The Road to Cultural Serfdom: America’s First Television Czar, in Back on the Road to Serfdom: The Resurgence of Statism 172 & n. 3 (Woods, Thomas E. Jr., ed., Wilmington, DE: ISI Books, 2011).Google Scholar
“nobody – least of all me – wants to be put in the role of censor.” Minow, Newton, Equal Time 73 (New York: Atheneum, 1964).Google Scholar
“in somebody’s opinion … the ratings demand a jolt.” Minow, Equal Time, supra, at 74–76, 92.Google Scholar
or even overdoses of brutality.” Minow, Equal Time, supra, at 76.Google Scholar
the conception of the liberty guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.” Near v. Minnesota, 283 US 697, 714–715 (1931).Google Scholar
“as far-fetched as comparing an elephant to a flea.” Minow, Equal Time, supra, at 88–89.Google Scholar
lacked sufficient “character” or “fitness” to be licensees. Minow, Equal Time, supra, at 90–94.Google Scholar
thus clouding their future tenure as licensees. Watson, Mary Ann, The Expanding Vista: American Television in the Kennedy Years 216–217 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Cantor, supra, at 172 & n. 3.Google Scholar
It was aptly named, for only a child could believe it. Minow, Newton N. and LaMay, Craig L., Abandoned in the Wasteland 108–109, 122–132 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1995).Google Scholar
televangelist Oral Roberts on WOR-TV. TV Listings, New York Times, May 14, 1961, X14–X16.Google Scholar
and Winston Churchill (WABC-TV). TV Listings, New York Times, May 14, 1961, X14–X16.Google Scholar
to subject moving pictures to prior review and censorship. Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm’n of Ohio, 236 US 230, 242 (1915).Google Scholar
as simply “application of the regulatory power of Congress in a field within the scope of its legislative authority.” Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Comm’n, 62 F. 2d 850, 851 (DC Cir. 1932).Google Scholar
“the essence of censorship.” Near, 283 US at 713.Google Scholar
let vice run rampant, and that the district attorney took bribes. Powe, L. A., American Broadcasting and the First Amendment 13–21 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).Google Scholar
before the court passes on the questions involved.” Coase, Ronald, The Federal Communications Commission, 2 J. Law & Econ. 1, 40 (1959) (quoting Clarence C. Dill, Radio Law 1–2 (1938)). SeeGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
The Court disagreed. NBC v. United States, 319 US 190 (1943).Google Scholar
to the development of the automobile.” NBC v. United States, 319 US at 213.Google Scholar
“determining the composition of that traffic.” NBC v. United States, 319 US at 215–126.Google Scholar
a crisis that would spur congressional action. Hazlett, Thomas Winslow, The Political Spectrum 36–46 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017); Emord, Jonathan W., Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment 153–156 (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1991).Google Scholar
he could still regulate frequencies and hours of use. Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 286 F. 1003 (DC Cir. 1923). See Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 9.Google Scholar
under what circumstances, and with what type of material.” Herbert Hoover, Minutes of Open Meetings of Department of Commerce Conference on Radio Telephony, Feb. 27, 1922 (Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa, Box 496); Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 8.Google Scholar
should be regulated and controlled by the Federal government in the public interest.” Tentative Report of Department of Commerce Conference on Radio Telephony (Mar. 1922). Herbert Hoover Presidential Library, West Branch, Iowa, Box 496.Google Scholar
necessary to present interference detrimental to the public good.” Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 10.Google Scholar
“suddenly remedied” without the passage of a new law. Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 10; Powe, supra, at 57–58.Google Scholar
are kept upon the air without destroying each other.” Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 41.Google Scholar
with new receivers making it possible to reduce interference when tuning in stations. Powe, supra, at 58.Google Scholar
but not to enforce restrictions on operations. United States v. Zenith Radio Corp., 12 F. 2d 614 (N. D. Ill. 1926).Google Scholar
in support of the case he had just lost. 35 Op. Att’y Gen 126 (1926).Google Scholar
that Hoover’s authority was strictly limited. Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 41–42.Google Scholar
the entire Justice Department opinion was published in the New York Times. Rosen, Philip T., The Modern Stentors: Radio Broadcasters and the Federal Government, 1920–1934 101–102 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980); Text of Ruling Denying Radio Control, New York Times, Jul. 10, 1926.Google Scholar
the Commerce Department was out of the business of regulating radio. Powe, supra, at 60; Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 11–12; Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 41–42.Google Scholar
broadcasters no longer felt constrained to stay on their assigned channels. Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 11–12.Google Scholar
“interference was not the issue, interference was the opportunity.” Hazlett, Thomas W., The Rationality of Regulation of the Broadcast Spectrum, 33 J. Law & Econ. 133, 162 (1990).Google Scholar
mechanism for preventing one broadcaster from using the same frequency as another. Minasian, Jora A., The Political Economy of Broadcasting in the 1920’s, J. Law & Econ. 391, 402–403 (Oct. 1969).Google Scholar
afforded policy makers far broader regulatory discretion than was needed to restore order.” Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 38. See also Emord, supra, at 155–156.Google Scholar
“almost like an invitation for broadcasters to do their worst.” Craig, Douglas B., Fireside Politics: Radio and Political Culture in the United States 1920–1940 49 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
retain complete and absolute control of the right to use the air.” Dill, Clarence C., A Traffic Cop for the Air, 75 review of Reviews 181, 184 (1927).Google Scholar
under what circumstances, and with what type of material.” Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 19.Google Scholar
could not interfere with WGN within a 100-mile radius. Tribune Company v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station, Cook County, Ill. Circuit Court (Nov. 17, 1926), reprinted in 68 Cong. Rec.-Senate 215–219 (Dec. 10, 1926). See Rosen, supra, at 102–103; Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 15–16.Google Scholar
“the use of a wave length established a priority of right.” Cong. Rec.-House 2579 (Jan. 29, 1927). See Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 43; Emord, supra, at 156–157.Google Scholar
or face immediate termination of the right to broadcast if they failed to do so. Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 43.Google Scholar
beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license.” Radio Act of 1927, Pub. L. No. 632, 69th Cong., 2nd Sess. Ch. 169.Google Scholar
which seven years later supplanted the Radio Act. 47 USC § 301.Google Scholar
it would no doubt be accurate to describe the resulting situation as chaos.” Coase, Ronald, The Federal Communications Commission, 2 J. Law & Econ. 1, 14 (1959).Google Scholar
inconsistent with the doctrine of freedom of the press.” Coase, supra, at 7.Google Scholar
you have got to do something so the public can hear the radio.” Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on H. R. 1934, House of Representatives, 100th Cong. 64 (Apr. 7, 1987) (Testimony of Newton Minow) (“House Fairness Doctrine Hearings”).Google Scholar
and the result was chaos.” House Fairness Doctrine Hearings at 62 (Testimony of Charles Ferris).Google Scholar
censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station,” 47 USC § 109 (1927).Google Scholar
has anything to do with entertainment programs as such.” Caldwell, Louis, Censorship of Radio Programs, 1 J. Radio Law 441, 467 (1931).Google Scholar
and to favor those which render the best service.” Rosen, supra, at 138.Google Scholar
but it opted not to do so and instead went in the opposite direction. Federal Radio Commission, First Annual Report 13 (1927).Google Scholar
“the success of radio broadcasting lay in doing away with small and unimportant stations.” McChesney, Robert, Telecommunications, Mass Media & Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928–1935 19 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
more than a hundred small stations were off the air with a year of the Radio Act’s adoption. Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 50; Powe, supra, at 63; Rosen, supra, at 134–137.Google Scholar
many stations voluntarily relinquished their licenses. Rosen, supra, at 136–137.Google Scholar
by 1930 that number was cut by more than half. McChesney, supra, at 30–31; Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 50.Google Scholar
“[t]he first step slayed the weak; the second banished the different.” Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 21.Google Scholar
religious, political, social, and economic.” Federal Radio Commission, Third Annual Report 32 (1929); Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 23–24.Google Scholar
phasing out its labor programming and affiliating with NBC. Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 55–57.Google Scholar
“operate with due regard for the opinions of others.” Federal Radio Commission, Second Annual Report 156 (1928); Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 23; Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 57–58.Google Scholar
outrageous and unfounded attacks on public officials.” Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Comm’n, 62 F. 2d 850, 851 (DC Cir. 1932); Powe, supra, at 16; Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 53–54; Emord, supra, at 177–179; Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 24–25.Google Scholar
and news of interest to all members of the family.” Great Lakes Broadcasting Co., 3 FRC Ann. Rep. 32; Federal Radio Commission, Third Annual Report 34 (1929); Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 23–24; Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 54.Google Scholar
“were best delivered not via specialty shops but by department stores.” Hazlett, The Political Spectrum, supra, at 54.Google Scholar
and (finally) entertainment programming. Report and Statement of Policy re: Commission En Banc Programming Inquiry, 44 FCC 2303, 2314 (1960).Google Scholar
“arguably the blandest decade of American television.” Cantor, supra, at 171–187.Google Scholar
“Imagination does not flourish in a climate of coercion.” Cantor, supra, at 177–178. Watson, supra, at 51.Google Scholar
its own subjective determination of what is or is not a good program.” En Banc Programming Inquiry, 44 FCC at 2308.Google Scholar
[its role] cannot be one of program dictation or program supervision.” En Banc Programming Inquiry, 44 FCC at 2308–2309 (quoting Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 US 296, 307 (1940)).Google Scholar
to exercise far-reaching powers of control over the licensee’s operations.” Robinson, Glen O., The FCC and the First Amendment: Observations on 40 Years of Radio and Television Regulation, 52 Minn. Law Rev. 67, 119 (1967).Google Scholar
tend to promote and/or glorify the use of illegal drugs.” In re Licensee Responsibility to Review Records Before Their Broadcast, 28 FCC 2d 409 (1971), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC 2d 377, 410 (1971) (Statement of Commissioner Robert E. Lee), Reconsideration Denied, 31 FCC 2d 385 (1971).Google Scholar
such artists as The Beatles, Bob Dylan, and Peter, Paul and Mary, among others. Ben Fong-Torres, FCC Discovers Dope, Does Darndest Thing, Rolling Stone, Apr. 1, 1971. See Blanchard, Margaret A., The American Urge to Censor: Freedom of Expression Versus the Desire to Sanitize Society – From Anthony Comstock to 2 Live Crew, 33 William & Mary Law Rev. 741, 806 (1992).Google Scholar
uncontrolled administrative discretion in the review of telecommunications programming.” Bazelon, David L., FCC Regulation of the Telecommunications Press, Duke Law J. 213, 215 (1975).Google Scholar
even a governmental ‘raised eyebrow’ can send otherwise intrepid entrepreneurs running for the cover of conformity.” Bazelon, David L., The First Amendment and the “New Media” – New Directions in Regulating Telecommunications, 31 Federal Communications Law J. 201, 206 (1979).Google Scholar
and Senator Estes Kefauver held hearings TV violence as well as comics. See Hearings for the Investigation of Juvenile Delinquency in the United States, Subcomm. to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) and 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. (1954).Google Scholar
to “proceed vigorously and as rapidly as possible” to comply. H. Rep. No. 1139, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 15 (1974); S. Rep. No. 1056, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 19 (1974).Google Scholar
such action may be considered. H. Rep. No. 1139, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. at 15.Google Scholar
“Forget about the First Amendment; we’ll let the courts worry about that.” Writers Guild of America, West v. FCC, 423 F. Supp. 1064, 1111 (C.D. Cal. 1976), vacated and remanded on jurisdictional grounds sub nom. Writers Guild of America, West v. ABC, 609 F. 2d 355 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 449 US 824 (1980).Google Scholar
will obviate any need for governmental regulation in this sensitive area.” Report on the Broadcast of Violent, Indecent, and Obscene Material, 51 FCC 2d 418, 420, 422 (1975).Google Scholar
TV shows were rescheduled, certain storylines were scrapped, and scripts were censored. Rintels, David W, Why We Fought the Family Viewing Hour, New York Times, Nov. 21, 1976, at 107.Google Scholar
were per se violations of the First Amendment. Writers Guild of America, West, 423 F. Supp. at 1073, 1142, 1151.Google Scholar
Judge Ferguson characterized the FCC’s tactics as “backroom bludgeoning,” Writers Guild of America, West, 423 F. Supp. at 1142.Google Scholar
communications between Wiley and representatives of NAB. Writers Guild of America, West, 423 F. Supp. at 1094–1119; Writers Guild of America, West v. FCC, 609 F. 2d at 359–360.Google Scholar
on the acceptance and scheduling of programs with sex and violence. Writers Guild of America, West, 423 F. Supp. at 1100–1101.Google Scholar
“persistent, pronounced, and unmistakable.” Writers Guild of America, West, 423 F. Supp. at 1094, 1098–1099.Google Scholar
the vagueness of the standards which govern it.” Writers Guild of America, West, 423 F. Supp. at 1146.Google Scholar
“the family viewing policy is in large part a public relations gimmick.” Writers Guild of America, West, 423 F. Supp. at 1149 n. 138.Google Scholar
serious issues involving the Constitution, the Communications Act and the [Administrative Procedure Act].” Writers Guild of America, West v. FCC, 609 F. 2d at 364–365.Google Scholar
should have first been presented to the FCC, given its expertise in the field. Writers Guild of America, West v. FCC, 609 F. 2d at 365–366. Page 264Google Scholar
and the Code’s operation was enjoined. United States v. National Ass’n of Broadcasters, 536 F. Supp. 149 (D. D.C. 1982).Google Scholar
to extend its power to new technologies beyond broadcasting. Minow and LaMay, supra, at 99–100; Minow, Equal Time, supra, at 92, 152–175.Google Scholar
and take more action to curb televised violence. Minow and LaMay, supra, at 152–175.Google Scholar
the power of individual viewers to manipulate information.” Minow and LaMay, supra, at 63, 65, 67, 153.Google Scholar
the revocation of station licenses affiliated with networks he disparaged. E.g., Shepardson, David, Trump Suggests Challenging TV Network Licenses Over “Fake News,” Reuters, Oct. 11, 2017 (www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-media/trump-suggests-challenging-tv-network-licenses-over-fake-news-idUSKBN1CG1WB); Hazlett, Thomas Winslow, Making the Fairness Doctrine Great Again, Reason.com (Mar. 2018) (https://reason.com/archives/2018/02/15/making-the-fairness-doctrine-g).Google Scholar
“retribution” on his perceived enemies in the press. E.g., Cummings, William, “It’s called the First Amendment”: Pundits Decry Trump Call for “Retribution” against “SNL,” USA Today, Feb. 18, 2019 (www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/02/17/trump-attack-saturday-night-live-reactions/2899634002/).Google Scholar
with the intent to defame Congress or the President. Sedition Act of 1798, 1 Stat. 596.Google Scholar
the republican newspapers they felt had been slandering them. Burns, Eric, Infamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American Journalism 356 (New York: Public Affairs, 2006).Google Scholar
five republican papers were shuttered or ceased publication for at least some period during this time. Blumberg, Philip I., Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic 101 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Slack, Charles, Liberty’s First Crisis 233 (New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2015).Google Scholar
as palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image.” 4 Jefferson’s Works 555–556 (Washington ed.) (Letter to Abigail Adams, Jul. 22, 1804).Google Scholar
a national awareness of the central meaning of the First Amendment.” New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254, 273 (1964).Google Scholar
“irrationally hostile to the President and his programs.” Friendly, Fred W., The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment 32–42, 78–83 (New York: Vintage Books, 1975); Friendly, Fred, What’s Fair on the Air? New York Times, Mar. 30, 1975 p. 177. See House Fairness Doctrine Hearings, at 67–68 (Testimony of FCC Chairman Mark Fowler).Google Scholar
Others were silenced as well. Friendly, The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, supra, at 32–42, 78–83.Google Scholar
to challenge license renewals of “unfriendly” broadcast stations. Bazelon, FCC Regulation of the Telecommunications Press, supra, at 214, 216 & n. 9, 239.Google Scholar
“an official monitoring system through the FCC” in order to generate “official complaints” to the Commission. Bazelon, FCC Regulation of the Telecommunications Press, supra, at 244–248. See Final Report, Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, S. Rep. No. 981, 93rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 149 (1974).Google Scholar
as well as complaints against programs on PBS. Accuracy in Media, Inc. v. FCC, 521 F. 2d 288 (DC Cir. 1975); In the matter of Complaints Concerning Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., Program “The Selling of the Pentagon,” 30 FCC 2d 149 (1971). See Nicole Hemmer, Trump Wants to Make the Media “Fair.” He’s Not the First GOP President to Try It, Washington Post, Aug. 29, 2018 (www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/08/29/trump-wouldnt-be-first-gop-president-try-make-media-fair/?utm_term=.08f4e64d2ce7).Google Scholar
criticizing private pension plans entitled Pensions: The Broken Promise. See Hemmer, supra.Google Scholar
the monopoly power wielded by Big TV Media.” House Fairness Doctrine Hearings at 247–248 (Testimony of Phyllis Schlafly).Google Scholar
and for an episode of a news special called Pentagon Underground. Corn, Robert L., Broadcasters in Bondage, Reason, Sept. 1985, 31–34; Corn–Revere, Robert, Fairness 2.0: Media Content Regulation in the 21st Century, Cato Institute Policy Analysis No. 651, Nov. 10, 2009 (www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/fairness-20-media-content-regulation-21st-century).Google Scholar
applying the same First Amendment standards to broadcasting as to traditional media. Mark Fowler and Daniel L. Brenner, A Marketplace Approach to Broadcast Regulation, 60 Texas Law Rev. 207 (1982).Google Scholar
which no longer served the public interest and was constitutionally suspect. Inquiry into Section 73. 1910 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations Concerning General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 102 FCC 2d 143, 147–149 (1985) (“1985 Fairness Doctrine Report”).Google Scholar
Just remember that and we are going to get along fine.” House Fairness Doctrine Hearings, at 64–65 (Testimony of Newton Minow). See Friendly, The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, supra, at 215.Google Scholar
“Before you do anything, you will inform the Congress.” Friendly, The Good Guys, the Bad Guys, and the First Amendment, supra, at 214–215.Google Scholar
“Yes, sir, I understand exactly what you are saying.” Federal Communications Commission Oversight Hearings Before the Subcomm. on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection, and Finance of the House Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 53 (1984).Google Scholar
three kicks might do the trick.” Reauthorization and Oversight of the FCC, Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Communications of the Senate Comm. on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 2–3 (1985).Google Scholar
in light of the evidence adduced in this proceeding.” 1985 Fairness Doctrine Report, 102 FCC 2d at 247.Google Scholar
the proposed construction of the Nine Mile Point II nuclear power plant. In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council, 99 FCC 2d 1389 (1984).Google Scholar
“We’re talking political reality here.” Meredith Corp. v. FCC, 809 F. 2d 863, 873 (DC Cir. 1987).Google Scholar
because the resolution would be politically awkward.” Meredith Corp. v. FCC, 809 F. 2d at 874.Google Scholar
and with the American tradition of independent journalism.” President Ronald Reagan, Veto Message for S. 742, the Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, Jun. 19, 1987. See Veto of Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1987, 23 Weekly Pres. Comp. Doc. 715 (Jun. 29, 1987).Google Scholar
terminate the main provisions of the fairness doctrine and cease enforcement. Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 (1987), aff’d, Syracuse Peace Council v. FCC, 867 F. 2d 654 (DC Cir. 1989).Google Scholar
avoid another confrontation with the White House. See Bloch, Susan Low, Orphaned Rules in the Administrative State: The Fairness Doctrine and Other Orphaned Progeny of Interactive Deregulation, 76 Georgetown Law J. 59, 83–84 (1987).Google Scholar
in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium.” Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 US 367, 388, 390 (1969).Google Scholar
to provide balanced coverage of political affairs. Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418 US 241, 250–252 (1974).Google Scholar
First Amendment guarantees of a free press as they have evolved to this time. Tornillo, 418 US at 258.Google Scholar
where government has been allowed to meddle in the internal editorial affairs of newspapers.” Tornillo, 418 US at 259 (White, J., concurring).Google Scholar
couldn’t compel licensees to accept editorial advertising, CBS, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 US 94 (1973).Google Scholar
or ban editorials by public broadcasters. FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 US 364 (1984).Google Scholar
the Commission could not ignore a station’s First Amendment concerns. Meredith Corp., 809 F. 2d at 873.Google Scholar
to reconsider the premise or approach of its decision in Red Lion.” Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council, 2 FCC Rcd. at 5048, 5055.Google Scholar
Why do you want us to intervene?” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 10-1293, Transcript of oral argument, Jan. 10, 2012, 33–34 (www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2011/10-1293.pdf).Google Scholar
because he considered the technology “supernatural.” Coase, supra; Krattenmaker and Powe, supra, at 33.Google Scholar
“[T]o many of us, this enlarged choice is not enough to satisfy the public interest.” Minow, Newton, How Vast the Wasteland Now? Address at the Freedom Forum Media Studies Center, Columbia University, May 9, 1991.Google Scholar
the prospects for serving the public interest even dimmer.” Minow and LaMay, supra, at vii.Google Scholar
the lowest common denominator in the marketplace.” Minow, How Vast the Wasteland Now?, supra.Google Scholar
should be applied to digital, computer-driven video servers on the “Information Superhighway.” Minow and LaMay, supra, at 174–175.Google Scholar
“The two words I cared about were ‘public interest.’” Minow and LaMay, supra, at 3–4.Google Scholar
The title? A Vaster Wasteland. Newton Minow, A Vaster Wasteland, The Atlantic (Apr. 2011) (www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/04/a-vaster-wasteland/308418/).Google Scholar
streamlined or eliminated many of these requirements. Deregulation of Radio, 84 FCC 2d 968 (1981), aff’d. in part and remanded in part, Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 707 F. 2d 1413 (DC Cir. 1983); Revision of Programming and Commercialization Policies, Ascertainment Requirements, and Program Requirements for Commercial Television Stations, 98 FCC 2d 1078 (1984); Revisions of Programming Policies and Reporting Requirements Related to Public Broadcasting Licensees, 96 FCC 2d 74 (1984).Google Scholar
but that effort to expand content regulation failed. FCC v. WNCN Listeners Guild, 450 US 582 (1981).Google Scholar
perhaps it was time to auction off broadcast frequencies. Minow, A Vaster Wasteland, supra.Google Scholar
triggered heightened review of license renewal applications. Robert Corn-Revere, Regulation in Newspeak: The FCC’s Children’s Television Rules, Feb. 19, 1997 (www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/regulation-newspeak-fccs-childrens-television-rules).Google Scholar
a “vast array” of new programming offerings. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Children’s Television Programming Rules, FCC 18-93 (Jul. 13, 2018), at 15–16.Google Scholar
it was time to eliminate the ineffective and burdensome requirements. Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, It’s Time to Reexamine the FCC’s Kid Vid Requirements, Jan. 26, 2018 (www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2018/01/26/its-time-reexamine-fccs-kid-vid-requirements).Google Scholar
that many have called the “new Golden Age of television.” Leslie, Ian, Watch It While It Lasts: Our Golden Age of Television, Financial Times, Apr. 13, 2017 (www.ft.com/content/68309b3a-1f02-11e7-a454-ab04428977f9); TV’s Golden Age Is Real, The Economist, Nov. 24, 2018 (www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/11/24/tvs-golden-age-is-real); Shuster, Martin, The New Golden Age of Television, AEON, Jun. 17, 2018(https://theweek.com/articles/776675/new-golden-age-television).Google Scholar
undermined creativity on television with a “disastrous” speech. Cantor, supra, at 171; Schwartz, Sherwood, Inside Gilligan’s Island xv–xvi, 5, 269 (New York: St. Martin’s, 1994).Google Scholar
“The S. S. Minnow has made me immortal.” Minow, A Vaster Wasteland, supra.; Jarvis, Robert M., Legal Tales from Gilligan’s Island, 39 Santa Clara Law Rev. 185, 204 n. 113 (1998).Google Scholar
overshadowed by his unflattering connection with Gilligan’s Island.” Jarvis, supra, at 203–204.Google Scholar
and inspired the names of pets and even children. Jarvis, supra, at 185 & n. 1, 195–196.Google Scholar
for those who refuse to abide by standards of decency.” Testimony of L. Brent Bozell, III, “Can You Say That on TV?”: An Examination of the FCC’s Enforcement with Respect to Broadcast Indecency, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, No. 108-67, 108th Cong., 2nd Sess. 26–30 (Jan. 28, 2004) (“House Indecency Hearings”).Google Scholar
the propaganda arm of the Left: the national news media.” About the MRC (www.mrc.org/about).Google Scholar
downplaying coverage of Clinton White House scandals. Murrieta, Ed, If You Want It Done Right, WIRED, Jun. 16, 1998 (www.wired.com/1998/06/if-you-want-it-done-right/).Google Scholar
as the Right Wing’s “Facebook Army.” Goldmacher, Shane and Alberta, Tim, The Right Wing’s Facebook Army, The Atlantic, Dec. 8, 2014. (www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/the-conservative-digital-army/383526/); The ForAmerica Mission (https://foramerica.org/about/).Google Scholar
of social conservatives and religious believers in the media.” About the MRC (www.mrc.org/about).Google Scholar
the civil rights of all Catholics.” Our Mission (www.catholicleague.org/our-mission/).Google Scholar
the moral authority of churches … to promote their secular leftist agenda.” Defund NPR, May 26, 2018 tweet (http://twitter.com/BrentBozell/status/1000520178327793664).Google Scholar
“an inadequate substitute for Christian politics.” Bridges, Linda and Coyne, John R., Jr., Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement 122–123 (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2007).Google Scholar
members of their constituencies.” Parents Television Council, Frequently Asked Questions (https://w2.parentstv.org/main/About/FAQ.aspx).Google Scholar
“major part of the … battle to keep the airwaves free of offensive content.” Parents Television Council, 2006 Annual report, at 15.Google Scholar
seeking to vastly expand what is considered illegal programming. Parents Television Council, Frequently Asked Questions (https://w2.%20parentstv.org/main/About/FAQ.aspx).Google Scholar
resulting in the stations being abruptly put out of business.” Parents Television Council, 2006 Annual report, at 16.Google Scholar
“the very reverse of censorship.” Minow, Newton, Equal Time 94 (New York: Atheneum, 1964).Google Scholar
with no responsibility to the public interest.” Parents Television Council, Frequently Asked Questions (https://w2.parentstv.org/main/About/FAQ.aspx).Google Scholar
“[i]ndecencies and obscenities are now everywhere on broadcast TV.” House Indecency Hearings, supra, at 26.Google Scholar
first enacted as Section 29 of the Radio Act of 1927, Radio Act of 1927, § 29, 44 Stat. 1172–1173.Google Scholar
the Communications Act of 1934. Communications Act of 1934, §§ 312, 326, 501, 48 Stat. 1086, 1091 and 1100.Google Scholar
imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” 18 USC § 1464, 62 Stat. 769, 866.Google Scholar
or clear indication of congressional intent. See, e.g., 67 Cong. Rec. 12615 (1926) (remarks of Sen. Dill); id. at 5480 (remarks of Rep. White); 68 Cong. Rec. 2567 (1927) (remarks of Rep. Scott); Hearings on S. 1 and S. 1754 before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 121 (1926); Hearings on H. R. 5589 before the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 26, 40 (1926). See also Hearings on H. R. 8825 before the House Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. (1928).Google Scholar
members of Congress who spoke” about the provision. See United States v. Simpson, 561 F. 2d 53, 57 (7th Cir. 1977) (citing legislative history of Radio Act of 1927).Google Scholar
“obscene,” “indecent,” and “profane” were treated as essentially synonymous. E.g., Swearingen v. United States, 161 US 446, 450–451 (1896); Wise, Edythe, A Historical Perspective on the Protection of Children from Broadcast Indecency, 3 Vill. Sports & Ent. Law J. 15, 18 (1996).Google Scholar
the First Amendment limits the scope of obscenity law. Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 (1957).Google Scholar
“to call down the curse of God upon certain individuals.” Duncan v. United States, 48 F. 2d 128, 134 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 283 US 863 (1931). See generally Zechariah Chafee Jr., Free Speech in the United States 149–152 (2nd ed. 1941).Google Scholar
foul obscenity, smutty suggestiveness, and horrible blasphemy.” Lindsey Hobbs, The Mae West Incident: Radio Censorship in the 1930s, The Ultimate History Project (http://ultimatehistoryproject/mae-west-incident.html); Schwartz, A. Brad, Broadcast Hysteria: Orson Welles’s War of the Worlds and the Art of Fake News 136–138 (New York: Hill & Wang, 2015).Google Scholar
West’s inflections were too bawdy and suggestive. Summers, Harrison B., Federal Laws, Regulations, and Decisions Affecting the Programming and Operating Policies of American Broadcasting Stations, p. C-10 (Ohio State University, Feb. 1962) (citing contemporary accounts in Broadcasting Magazine, Dec. 20, 1937 and Jan. 25, 1938). See Heins, supra, at 91.Google Scholar
“in the next few months they aired nothing else that was offensive.” Schwartz, supra, at 137.Google Scholar
“the duty of the Commission to do something about it.” Schwartz, supra, at 138.Google Scholar
kept Mae West off radio for fourteen years. Hobbs, supra; Schwartz, supra, at 138.Google Scholar
“coarse, vulgar, suggestive, double-meaning programming” and “smut.” Palmetto Broadcasting Co. (WDKD), Kingstree, S. C., 33 FCC 250, 256–259, 265–280 (1962), aff’d on other grounds, Robinson v. FCC, 334 F. 2d 534 (DC Cir. 1964). See Heins, supra, at 92–93; Powe, L. A., American Broadcasting and the First Amendment 167–169 (University of California Press, 1987).Google Scholar
“in order to set an example to the industry.” Palmetto Broadcasting Co. (WDKD), 33 FCC at 258.Google Scholar
“as adjectives, or simply as an introductory expletive.” Eastern Educational Radio (WUHY-FM), 24 FCC 2d 408, 414 (1970). See Powe, supra, at 174–176.Google Scholar
and utterly without redeeming social value. Eastern Educational Radio, 24 FCC 2d at 412.Google Scholar
a single complaint about the broadcast in question.” Eastern Educational Radio, 24 FCC 2d at 420 (Statement of Commissioner Kenneth A. Cox, concurring in part and dissenting in part).Google Scholar
the programming of innovative and experimental stations.” Eastern Educational Radio, 24 FCC 2d at 422–423 (Statement of Commissioner Nicholas Johnson, dissenting).Google Scholar
the fact is that the public concept of decency has changed.” People on Complaint of Sumner v. Miller, 155 Misc. 446, 446–448 (City Magistrate’s Court of New York, 1935).Google Scholar
“tasteless and vulgar program content, whether explicit or by sexually-oriented innuendo.” Illinois Citizens Comm. for Broad. v. FCC, 515 F. 2d 397, 408 (DC Cir. 1974) (Statement of Chief Judge Bazelon on why he voted to grant rehearing en banc, quoting NAB resolution).Google Scholar
“It is my hope and the purpose of this statement to make further government action moot.” Illinois Citizens Comm. for Broad. v. FCC, 515 F. 2d 397, 408 (DC Cir. 1974) (Statement of Chief Judge Bazelon quoting speech by FCC Chairman Dean Burch).Google Scholar
the Commission concluded that the racy talk about sex and use of double entendre was obscene. Sonderling Broad., Corp., 41 FCC 2d 777 (1973).Google Scholar
unofficial expression of the views of one member of the Commission.” Illinois Citizens Comm. for Broad., 515 F. 2d at 402, 405–406.Google Scholar
he lacked the support of the rest of his court to review the matter en banc. Illinois Citizens Comm. for Broad., 515 F. 2d at 408 (Statement of Chief Judge Bazelon).Google Scholar
total ignorance of the constitutional definition of obscenity.” Illinois Citizens Comm. for Broad., 515 F. 2d at 418–425 (Statement of Chief Judge Bazelon).Google Scholar
has never been authoritatively construed by the Courts.” A Citizen’s Complaint Against Pacifica Found. Station WBAI(FM), New York, N.Y., 56 FCC 2d 94, 97 (1975) (“FCC Pacifica Order”).Google Scholar
but none of those details mattered. Powe, supra, at 186.Google Scholar
“to clarify the applicable standards.” FCC Pacifica Order, 56 FCC 2d at 99.Google Scholar
a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.” FCC Pacifica Order, 56 FCC 2d at 9798.Google Scholar
whose minds are open to such immoral influences.” Regina v. Hicklin, LR 3 QB 360 (Queen’s Bench 1868).Google Scholar
no opportunity for journalistic editing.” Petition for Reconsideration of a Citizen’s Complaint Against Pacifica Foundation Station WBAI (FM), New York, N.Y., 59 FCC 2d 892, 893 n. 1 (1976) (“Pacifica Reconsideration Order”).Google Scholar
from governmental interference in matters of taste.” Pacifica Found. v. FCC, 556 F. 2d 9, 18 (DC Cir. 1977), rev’d, 438 US 726 (1978).Google Scholar
with the words repeated over and over [and] deliberately broadcast.” Brief for the Federal Communications Commission, FCC v. Pacifica Found., No. 77-528 (Mar. 3, 1978), 1978 WL 206838 at 25–26 (citation omitted).Google Scholar
in a “specific factual context.” FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 US 726, 742 (1978).Google Scholar
and not the broad sweep of the Commission’s opinion.” Pacifica Foundation, 438 US at 755–756 (Powell, J., concurring).Google Scholar
without restricting the expression at its source.” Pacifica Foundation, 438 US at 748–749.Google Scholar
“George Carlin, Constitutional Law Scholar.” Corcos, Christine A., George Carlin, Constitutional Law Scholar, 37 Stetson Law Rev. 899 (2008).Google Scholar
likely to occur again as Halley’s Comet.” Charles D. Ferris, Chairman, FCC, Address to New England Broadcasters Assoc. (Jul. 21, 1978).Google Scholar
and action indicating some sexually-oriented content in the program.” WGBH Educ. Found., 69 FCC 2d 1250, 1251–1252 (1978).Google Scholar
what is or is not ‘good’ programming.” WGBH Educ. Found., 69 FCC 2d at 1254.Google Scholar
given the position it had taken before the Court. Pacifica, 438 US at 772 (Brennan J., dissenting).Google Scholar
to recommend which complaints would be most likely to succeed. Crigler, John and Byrnes, William J., Decency Redux: The Curious History of the New FCC Broadcast Indecency Policy, 38 Cath. U. Law Rev 329, 344–347 (1989);Google Scholar
Corn-Revere, Robert, New Age Comstockery, 4 CommLaw Conspectus 173, 182 (1996).Google Scholar
“a broader range of material than the seven specific words at issue in Pacifica.” Pacifica Radio, 2 FCC Rcd. 2698, 2699 (1987), aff’d on recon., Infinity Broad. Corp. of Pa., 3 FCC Rcd. 930 (1987), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 852 F. 2d 1332 (DC Cir. 1988) (“ACT I”). See Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 2 FCC Rcd. 2703 (1987) (same subsequent history); Infinity Broad. of Pa., 2 FCC Rcd. 2705 (1987) (same subsequent history). See also New Indecency Enforcement Standards to Be Applied to all Broadcast and Amateur Radio Licensees, 2 FCC Rcd. 2726 (1987).Google Scholar
that may be considered indecent. Pacifica Radio, 2 FCC Rcd. at 2699. See Infinity Broad. of Pa., 3 FCC Rcd. at 930.Google Scholar
the high value our Constitution places on what the people say and hear.” ACT I, 852 F. 2d at 133839, 1340 n. 14, 1344.Google Scholar
a reasonable safe harbor rule.” ACT I, 852 F. 2d at 1343 n.18.Google Scholar
Congress could not constitutionally repeal the safe harbor. Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 932 F. 2d 1504, 1509–1510 (DC Cir. 1991) (“ACT II”).Google Scholar
that allowed indecent broadcasts between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Action for Children’s Television v. FCC, 58 F. 3d 654 (DC Cir. 1995) (en banc) (“ACT III”).Google Scholar
letter rulings that are stored in individual complaint files at the FCC. Letter from Chairman Michael K. Powell to Hon. John D. Dingell, Mar. 2, 2004.Google Scholar
Chaucer, Hemingway, and James Joyce. Pacifica Found. v. FCC, 556 F. 2d at 18.Google Scholar
could not be prohibited under Comstock-era obscenity law. United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses, 72 F. 2d 705 (2nd Cir. 1934).Google Scholar
in the dark about how the standards apply to particular cases. Letter from FCC Mass Media Bureau Chief James McKinney, to Counsel for Pacifica Radio (Jun. 5, 1987); William J. Byrnes, Esq., 63 Rad. Reg. 2d 216 (Mass Media Bur. 1987); Memorandum Opinion and Order, Pacifica Found., FCC No. 87-215 (FCC, released, Jun. 16, 1987). See Crigler and Byrnes, supra, at 339–340.Google Scholar
“seven of the best hours I have ever seen on a television set.” Quoted in Stephen Farber, They Watch What We Watch, New York Times, May 7, 1989.Google Scholar
and reclaims TV as a creative medium.” Kitman, Marvin, The Best Unwatched Show Ever, Newsday, Jan. 21, 1988, at 15; Kitman, Marvin, Riding Potter’s Express, Newsday, Feb. 17, 1989.Google Scholar
as challenging and compelling as the very best of film and theatre.” Canby, Vincent, Is the Year’s Best Film on TV? New York Times, Jul. 10, 1988; O’Connor, John J, TV View, New York Times, Dec. 25, 1988.Google Scholar
solely on the few moments of video that accompanied the complaint. Corn-Revere, New Age Comstockery, supra, at 181–182; Heins, supra, at 119.Google Scholar
that might consider presenting groundbreaking programming. Corn-Revere, New Age Comstockery, supra, at 181–182; Heins, supra, at 119.Google Scholar
but it provided little help. Industry Guidance on the Commission’s Case Law Interpreting 18 U.S. C. § 1464 and Enforcement Policies Regarding Broadcast Indecency, 16 FCC Rcd. 7999, 8008–8009 (2001).Google Scholar
material is not per se indecent if the material has merit.” The KBOO Found., 16 FCC Rcd. 10731, 10733 (Enf. Bur. 2001).Google Scholar
a willingness to pursue the matter in court, the Commission reconsidered its position. Jones v. FCC, 2002 WL 2018521 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).Google Scholar
the sexual descriptions in the song are not sufficiently graphic to warrant sanction.” KBOO Found., 18 FCC Rcd. 2472, 2474 (Enf. Bur. 2003).Google Scholar
even the edited version “contains unmistakable offensive sexual references.” Citadel Broad. Company, 16 FCC Rcd. 11,839 (Enf. Bur. 2001).Google Scholar
sufficiently explicit or graphic enough to be found patently offensive.” Citadel Broad. Co., 17 FCC Rcd. 483 (Enf. Bur. 2002).Google Scholar
mounted a campaign directed at the FCC. Learmonth, Michael, Parents Television Council Sees New Era, Variety, Mar. 17, 2007 (https://variety.com/2007/tv/news/parents-television-council-sees-new-era-1117961334/).Google Scholar
flooding the agency with 18,000 complaints. Parents Television Council, Indecency Timeline (http://w2parentstv.org/Main/Research/IndecencyTimeline.aspx).Google Scholar
the “first-ever web-driven complaint form.” 2006 PTC Annual Report, supra, at 17; 2004 PTC Annual Report, supra, at 12 (www.parentstv.org/ptc/joinus/AR2004.pdf).Google Scholar
“the ‘go-to’ spot for online activism against television violence, sex, and profanity.” 2006 PTC Annual Report, supra, at 17; 2004 PTC Annual Report, supra, at 12 (www.parentstv.org/ptc/joinus/AR2004.pdf).Google Scholar
programming it deemed to be “indecent” and/or “profane.” 2006 PTC Annual Report, supra, at 17.Google Scholar
information and action calls can be sent nationwide.” 2006 PTC Annual Report, supra, at 17.Google Scholar
custom-built computer database, ETS (Entertainment Tracking System).” Parents Television Council E-Alert for Feb. 10, 2005: PTC’s Latest Victories. See Smith, Lynn, For “Indecency” Watchdogs, Work Is a Day Full of TV; The Parents Television Council Monitors Shows and Uses Its Data to Put Pressure on the FCC, LA Times, May 10, 2004, at A1; Halonen, Doug, PTC E-mails Generate Results, Television Week, Oct. 18, 2004, at 51; Baker, Chris, TV Complaints to FCC Soar as Parents Lead the Way, Washington Times, May 24, 2004.Google Scholar
ranging from ‘Ass’ to ‘Whore.’” Todd Shields, PTC: On the Offensive, Mediaweek, Feb. 14, 2005.Google Scholar
the numbers jumped to 13,922 in 2002, 202,032 in 2003, and 1,068,802 in 2004. See www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/ichart.pdf.Google Scholar
counted five, six, or even seven times. Thierer, Adam, Examining the FCC’s Complaint-Driven Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Process (Nov. 2005), at 7–8 (www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop12.22indecencyenforcement.pdf).Google Scholar
deep in the footnotes in one of the Commission’s periodic reports. News Release, Quarterly Report on Informal Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Released (Jun. 10, 2004). See Hunt, Kurt, The FCC Complaint Process and “Increasing Public Unease”: Toward an Apolitical Broadcast Indecency Regime, 14 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. Law Rev. 223, 232–233 (2007).Google Scholar
the reported percentage was even higher – 99.9 percent. Thierer, Adam, Why Regulate Broadcasting? Toward a Consistent First Amendment Standard for the Information Age, 15 CommLaw Conspectus 431, 460 (2007); Fight the Tyranny of the Minority, Broadcasting & Cable, Dec. 20, 2004, at 28;Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
“Whoever gave that number at the FCC was a liar.” Calvert, Clay and Richards, Robert D., The Parents Television Council Uncensored: An Inside Look at the Watchdog of the Public Airwaves and the War on Indecency with Its President, Tim Winter, 33 Hastings Comm. & Ent. Law J. 293, 328 (2011).Google Scholar
“orchestrated fewer complaint campaigns this year than in previous years.” Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting?, supra, at 459–460.Google Scholar
the average monthly total in 2007 was just over 500 complaints. FCC, Quarterly Reports on Informal Consumer Inquiries and Complaints – 1st and 3rd Quarters 2007 (Jul. 1, 2008).Google Scholar
99.4 percent of the complaints the Commission had received for the year to that point. Thierer, Adam, More Inflated FCC Indecency Complaints, Sept. 9, 2009 (http://techliberation.com/2009/09/09/more-inflated-fcc-indecency-complaints).Google Scholar
including such shows as C.S.I.: Crime Scene Investigation, Friends, and Will & Grace. Scott Collins, Television & Radio; Crime Pays for Week’s Leader, CBS, LA Times, Oct. 13, 2004, at 12.Google Scholar
and FCC officials from acting as though it were real. Adam Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting? Supra, at 460; Fight the Tyranny of the Minority, Broadcasting & Cable, Dec. 20, 2004, at 28; Shields, Todd, Activists Dominate Content Complaints, Mediaweek.com, Dec. 6, 2004; Tapper, Jake, Is Popular Will Behind FCC Crackdowns, ABC News.com, Dec. 4, 2004; McBride, Sarah, One Man’s Campaign to Rid Radio of Smut Is Finally Paying Off, Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2004, at A1.Google Scholar
“direct response to the increase of public complaints.” Remarks of Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, at the National Association of Broadcasters Convention, Apr. 20, 2004, Las Vegas, Nevada, at 1, 3, 13–14; Hunt, supra, at 229–230.Google Scholar
“Americans have become more concerned about the content of television programming.” Hunt, supra, at 230.Google Scholar
and taken a series of “steps to sharpen our enforcement blade.” Testimony of Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Before the United States Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, at 3–4 (Feb. 11, 2004) (www.commerce.senate.gov/pdf/powell021104.pdf).Google Scholar
almost four times the total of all proposed fines in the previous ten years combined. See www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/ichart.pdf (as of Jan. 3, 2005); Thierer, Why Regulate Broadcasting?, supra, at 463. In 2004 the FCC issued the following Notices of Apparent Liability: Entercom Kansas City Licensee, LLC, FCC 04-231 (Dec. 22, 2004) ($220,000 NAL); WQAM License Ltd. P’ship, 19 FCC Rcd. 22997 (2004) ($55,000 NAL); Complaints Against Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox Network Program “Married by America” on April 7, 2003, 19 FCC Rcd. 20191 (2004) ($1,183,000 NAL); Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 1, 2004, Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show, 19 FCC Rcd. 19230 (2004); Entercom Sacramento, 19 FCC Rcd. 20129 ($55,000 NAL); AMFM Radio Licenses, L. L. C., 19 FCC Rcd. 10751 ($27,500 NAL), concurrently rescinded, 19 FCC Rcd. 10775 (2004); Clear Channel Broad. Licenses, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 6773 (2004) ($495,000 NAL); Infinity Broad. Operations, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 5032 ($27,5000 NAL); AMFM Radio Licenses, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 5005 (2004) ($247,500 NAL); Capstar TX Ltd. P’ship, 19 FCC Rcd. 4960 (2004) ($55,000 NAL); Clear Channel Broad. Licenses, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 1768 ($755,000 NAL); Young Broad. of San Francisco, 19 FCC Rcd. 1751 ($27,500 NAL); AMFM Radio Licenses, LLC, 19 FCC Rcd. 5005 (2004) ($247,500 NAL). In addition to these enforcement actions, the FCC entered settlements that resulted in payments totaling $5.5 million to the United States Treasury. See Viacom, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 23100 (2004) ($3.5 million); Emmis Communications Corp., 19 FCC Rcd. 16003 (1999) ($300,000); Clear Channel Communications, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 10,880 (2004) ($1.75 million).Google Scholar
thus eliminating the policy immunizing “fleeting expletives” from penalties. Complaints Against Various Broadcast Licensees Regarding Their Airing of the “Golden Globe Awards” Program, 19 FCC Rcd. 4975 (2004).Google Scholar
boosted the level of fines tenfold. Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–235, 120 Stat. 491 (Jun. 15, 2006), codified at 47 USC 503(b)(2)(C)(ii).i.Google Scholar
of $550,000 for twenty-three CBS-owned stations. Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 1, 2004, Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show, 19 FCC Rcd. 19230 (2004).Google Scholar
to impose a fine in February 2006. Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 1, 2004, Broadcast of the Super Bowl XXXVIII Halftime Show, 21 FCC Rcd. 6653 (2006).Google Scholar
for a Fox reality show called Married by America. Complaints Against Various Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast of the Fox Network Program “Married by America” on April 7, 2003, 19 FCC Rcd. 20191 (2004) ($1,183,000 NAL).Google Scholar
and dismissed various other complaints. Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts Between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005, Notices of Apparent Liability and Memorandum Opinion & Order, 21 FCC Rcd. 2664 (2006) (“Omnibus Order”).Google Scholar
stations that broadcast an episode of the prime time program Without a Trace. Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their December 31, 2004 Broadcast of the Program “Without A Trace,” 21 FCC Rcd. 2732, 2735 (2006).Google Scholar
could reasonably be said to require.” Without a Trace NAL, 21 FCC Rcd. at 2736.Google Scholar
without at least briefly describing those activities.” Omnibus Order, 21 FCC Rcd. at 2705–2706.Google Scholar
PTC had sent out an “E-Alert” to drum up complaints. PTC E-Alert, CBS Reruns Teen Orgy Scene (Jan. 12, 2005); PTC Press Release, PTC Chastises CBS/Viacom for Re-Airing Show Featuring Teen Orgy Party (Jan. 13, 2005).Google Scholar
“protest will be multiplied many, many times over!” PTC E-Alert, CBS Reruns Teen Orgy Scene (Jan. 12, 2005).Google Scholar
before Congress jacked up the indecency fines. In re Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Concerning Their February 25, 2003 Broadcast of the Program “NYPD Blue,” 23 FCC Rcd. 3147 (2008).Google Scholar
dropped all live news coverage that was not directly related to public safety. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 613, F. 3d 317, 335 (2nd Cir. 2010), aff’d on other grounds, 567 US 239 (2012).Google Scholar
the FCC demanded that NBC submit tapes of its Olympic coverage. Lisa de Moraes, FCC Wary of Greeks Bearing Gifts at Games, Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2004, at C1; Complaints in re EB-04-IH-0570, available at fcc.gov.Google Scholar
the FCC seriously considered even such obviously frivolous complaints. Timms, Dominic, Fearful U.S. TV Networks Censor More Shows, The Guardian, Jan. 18, 2005.Google Scholar
and that the FCC “consider license revocation.” PTC Press Release Regarding Dale Earnhardt, Oct. 18, 2004.Google Scholar
“because the Federal Communications Commission would be watching and listening.” PTC Press Release regarding Dale Earnhardt, Oct. 18, 2004; Bernstein, Viv, Earnhardt Fined for Checkered Language, New York Times, Oct. 6, 2004, at D2; Ed Hinton, Curses! Earnhardt Loses Cup Lead; NASCAR Docks Him 25 Points for Expletive on TV, Chicago Tribune, at C1.Google Scholar
We really don’t want to go there anymore.” Diane Toroian Keaggy, Radio’s “Shock” Therapy, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Apr. 11, 2004 (quoting John Kijowski, general manager of WVRV-FM and WSSM-FM); Hinckley, David, DJ Fired for Race Remark, New York Daily News, Mar. 23, 2004; Margolin, Josh, Jersey Radio Stations Clear the Air as Feds Crack Down, Newark Star-Ledger, Jun. 27, 2004; Pierce, Charles, Hot Button Issue, Boston Globe, Jul. 18, 2004, at 9; Davies, Jennifer, Fine-Wary Broadcasters Toe a Shifting Line; FCC Crackdown on Indecency Is Making Some Gun-Shy, San Diego Union-Tribune, May 29, 2004, at A1; Steinberg, Jacques, Eye on FCC, TV and Radio Watch Words, New York Times, May 10, 2004, at A1; Daneman, Matthew, WHUR Drops Its Live Radio Programs, Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, May 27, 2004, at B1.Google Scholar
the deleted words are essential components of the subject’s poetry. Press Release, PBS Edits “Offensive” Content from Independently-Produced Documentary Every Child Is Born a Poet: The Life and Work of Piri Thomas in Order to Comply with New FCC Indecency Rules, Apr. 6, 2004.Google Scholar
even though an effort to declare it obscene had failed in 1957. Cohen, Patricia, “Howl” in an Era That Fears Indecency, New York Times, Oct. 4, 2007, at E3.Google Scholar
“fuck” or “fucking” ten times in thirty seconds. Letter to Peter Branton, 6 FCC Rcd. 610 (1991), petition for rev. dismissed, 993 F. 2d 906 (DC Cir. 1993).Google Scholar
because it occurred “during a morning news interview.” Omnibus Order, 21 FCC Rcd. at 2699.Google Scholar
would “defer to CBS’s plausible characterization of its own programming” as news. Complaints Regarding Various Television Broadcasts between February 2, 2002 and March 8, 2005, 21 FCC Rcd. 13299, 13327–13328 (2006) (“Omnibus Remand Order”).Google Scholar
there is no outright news exemption from our indecency rules.” Omnibus Remand Order, 21 FCC Rcd. at 13327 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
after the FCC adopted its more restrictive indecency policy. Pelofsky, Jeremy, Profanity Concerns Prompt CBS to Show “9/11” on Web, Reuters (Sept. 9, 2006); Eggerton, John, Pappas Won’t Air CBS’ 9–11 Doc, Broadcasting & Cable (Sept. 7, 2006); Eggerton, John, Sinclair to Delay 9/11 Doc, Broadcasting & Cable (Sept. 1, 2006).Google Scholar
was altered because a soldier’s shouts included expletives. Kumar, Dinesh, FCC Indecency Guidelines Clear for Some Public TV Stations, Communications Daily, Mar. 2, 2005, at 9–11.Google Scholar
and others by using a banner as a cover. de Moraes, Lisa, Some Local Stations Cautious in Gauguin Painting Coverage, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 2011, at C1.Google Scholar
depict or describe sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Letter from Charles W. Kelley, Chief, Investigations and Hearings Division, Enforcement Bureau to Tim Wildmon, Vice President, American Family Association, File No. EB-02-IH-0085/RP, Jun. 7, 2002.Google Scholar
one scene depicted frontal nudity. WPBN/WTOM License Subsidiary, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd. 1838 (2000).Google Scholar
or in other cases a country/western music special. Rich, Frank, Bono’s New Casualty: “Private Ryan,” New York Times, Nov. 21, 2004; de Moraes, Lisa, “Saving Private Ryan”: A New Casualty of the Indecency War, Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2004; ABC Affiliates Pulling “Private Ryan,” CNN Money, Nov. 11, 2004 (http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/11/news/%20fortune500/savingpvt_ryan/).Google Scholar
claiming (as it had years earlier for Ulysses) that to do so would constitute a prior restraint. Eggerton, John, Dissing Private Ryan, Broadcasting & Cable, Nov. 12, 2004.Google Scholar
“hard on,” and “hell.” Complaints Against Various Television Licensees Regarding Their Broadcast on November 11, 2004, of the ABC Television Network’s Presentation of the Film “Saving Private Ryan,” 20 FCC Rcd. 4507, 4510 (2005).Google Scholar
and concluded it was not. Saving Private Ryan, 20 FCC Rcd. at ¶ 14.Google Scholar
was preceded by TV ratings and viewer advisories. Saving Private Ryan, 20 FCC Rcd. at ¶¶ 2 & n. 3, 11, 14–16.Google Scholar
several weeks before it released the order. FCC to Deny Private Ryan Indecent – Source, Reuters, Jan. 24, 2005; Pelofsky, Jeremy, FCC Chief Urges Denying “Private Ryan” Complaints, Reuters, Dec. 13, 2004.Google Scholar
in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 489 F. 3d 444 (2nd Cir. 2007), rev’d, 556 US 502 (2009); CBS Corp. v. FCC, 535 F. 3d 167 (3rd Cir. 2008), cert. granted, vacated, and remanded, 556 US 1218 (2009).Google Scholar
but sent the matter back to the agency to give another try. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 489 F. 3d at 462.Google Scholar
“will be decided soon enough, perhaps in this very case.” Fox Television Stations, 556 US at 517, 527, 529.Google Scholar
the Commission appears to be entirely unaware of this fact.” Fox Television Stations, 556 US at 544 (Justice Stevens, dissenting).Google Scholar
the long shadow the First Amendment casts over what the Commission has done.” Fox Television Stations, 556 US at 545 (Justice Ginsburg, dissenting).Google Scholar
a “deep intrusion into the First Amendment rights of broadcasters.” Fox Television Stations, 556 US at 531–535 (Justice Thomas, concurring).Google Scholar
reserving judgment on whether the FCC’s action was constitutional. Fox Television Stations, 556 US at 538–539 (Justice Kennedy, concurring).Google Scholar
the board “fucked up my house.” Fox Television Stations, Inc. Oral Argument, C-Span (Jan. 13, 2010) (www.c-span.org/video/?291305-1/fox-television-v-fcc).Google Scholar
whether the FCC will consider a particular broadcast [acceptable].” Fox Television Stations, Inc., 613 F. 3d at 332.Google Scholar
which largely profiled an outsider genre of musical experience.” Fox Television Stations, Inc., 613 F. 3d at 333.Google Scholar
that the word ‘bullshitter’ was uttered during a news program.” Fox Television Stations, Inc., 613 F. 3d at 332.Google Scholar
but this surely was not it. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 613 F. 3d at 335.Google Scholar
that took place before the change in policy in Golden Globes. CBS Corp. v. FCC, 663 F.3d 122 (3rd Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 567 US 953 (2012).Google Scholar
voiding the FCC policy as being unconstitutionally vague. ABC, Inc. v. FCC, 404 Fed. Appx. 530 (2nd Cir. 2011).Google Scholar
any modified policy in light of its content and application.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 US 239, 259 (2012).Google Scholar
the FCC had to write a $550,000 refund check to CBS. CBS Corp. v. FCC, 567 US 953 (2012).Google Scholar
most did not even come from the viewing areas of the stations named. Jarvis, Jeff, The Shocking Truth about the FCC: Censorship by the Tyranny of the Few, Buzzmachine, Nov. 15, 2004 (https://buzzmachine.com/2004/11/15/).Google Scholar
the FCC lowered the fine to $91,000 (to be collected from 13 stations). Oxenford, David, A Tale of Two Indecency Decisions – FCC Issues Fines for Married by America and NYPD Blue, Broadcast Law Blog, Feb. 23, 2008 (www.broadcastlawblog.com/2008/02/articles/a-tale-of-two-indecency-decisions-fcc-issues-fines-for-married-by-america-and-nypd-blue/).Google Scholar
to focus only on what he called “egregious indecency violations.” Eggerton, John, DOJ, FCC Drop Pursuit of Fox “Married by America” Indecency Fine, Broadcasting & Cable, Sept. 21, 2012.Google Scholar
otherwise deficient, or “foreclosed by settled precedent.” Public Notice, FCC Reduces Backlog of Broadcast Indecency Complaints by 70% (More Than One Million Complaints); Seeks Comment on Adopting Egregious Cases Policy Pleading Cycle Established, 28 FCC Rcd 4082 (2013) (“2013 Public Notice”).Google Scholar
plummeted back to normal levels of about 2,000 per year. Chris, Cynthia, The Indecent Screen 76 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2018); FCC Consumer Complaint Center (https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us).Google Scholar
“to ensure they are fully consistent with vital First Amendment principles.” 2013 Public Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 4082.Google Scholar
still has taken no action to modify or clarify its policy. Calvert, Clay, Minch, Minchin, Billaud, Keran, Bruckenstein, Kevin, and Phillips, Tershone, Indecency Four Years After Fox Television Stations: From Big Papi to a Porn Star, an Egregious Mess at the FCC Continues, 54 Univ. of Richmond Law Rev. 329, 349 (2017).Google Scholar
one of those “egregious” cases. In the Matter of WDBJ Television, Inc., 30 FCC Rcd. 3024 (2015).Google Scholar
the highest fine the Commission has ever taken for a single indecent broadcast on one station.” News Release, FCC Plans Maximum Fine Against WDBJ for Broadcasting Indecent Programming Material During Evening Newscast (Mar. 23, 2015) (www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-plans-max-fine-against-wdbj-indecent-material-evening-news-0).Google Scholar
there is “no news exemption from the indecency law.” In the Matter of WDBJ Television, Inc., 30 FCC Rcd. at 3031.Google Scholar
and was inconsistent with FCC precedent. Opposition of WDBJ Television, Inc. to Notice of Apparent Liability, File Nos. EB-IHD-14-00016819, EB-12-IH-1363 (filed Jun. 30, 2015); Calvert et al., 54 Univ. of Richmond Law Rev. at 359–365.Google Scholar
was silent about the WDBJ fine. Schurz Communications, Inc., DA 16-154 (rel. Feb. 12, 2016).Google Scholar
ten-year constitutional attack waged by the broadcast industry.” Press Release, PTC Responds to FCC’s Proposal to Limit Broadcast Decency Enforcement, Apr. 1, 2013 (http://w2.parentstv.org/Main/News/Detail.aspx?docID=2771); Calvert et al., 54 Univ. of Richmond Law Rev., at 349.Google Scholar
Why do you want us to intervene?” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 10-1293, Transcript of oral argument, Jan. 10, 2012, 33–34 (www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2011/10-1293.pdf).Google Scholar
some individual complaints appearing in the record up to 37 times.” CBS Corp., 663 F. 3d at 135 n. 13.Google Scholar
“to allow folks of different political stripes to listen more intently to what we have to say.” Learmonth, Michael, Parent’s Television Council Sees New Era, Variety.com, Mar. 17, 2007 (https://variety.com/2007/tv/news/parents-television-council-sees-new-era-1117961334/).Google Scholar
over a million members, with grassroots chapters across the United States. Parents Television Council, 2006 Annual report, at 1, 3–5, 14–15, 24–25.Google Scholar
“Tim will do a better job than I in leading the PTC into the future.” Parents Television Council, 2006 Annual report, at 1.Google Scholar
just over $2.2 million (and expenses of more than $2.3 million). Parents Television Council, 2017 Annual report (http://w2.parentstv.org/Main/WebMedia/PDF/PTC_Annual_2017.pdf); Parents Television Council, IRS Form 990 (2019) (www.causeiq.com/organizations/view_990/954819071/46f9fbbb398d7649073b03ad2ef2fbc2).Google Scholar
and a program director. PTC Leadership Team (http://w2.parentstv.org/main/About/leadership.aspx).Google Scholar
“is committing journalistic malpractice.” Eshman, Rob, Howard Stern and the Parent’s Television Council Fallacy, Jewish Journal May 15, 2012 (https://jewishjournal.com/opinion/rob_eshman/104052/).Google Scholar
“How Will Org Survive without Founder Bozell?” Learmonth, Michael, Parent’s Television Council Sees New Era, Variety.com, Mar. 17, 2007 (https://variety.com/2007/tv/news/parents-television-council-sees-new-era-1117961334/).Google Scholar
difficult times for the indecency police.” Barnes, Brooks, TV Watchdog Group Is on the Defensive, New York Times, Oct. 24, 2010 (www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/business/media/25watchdog.html).Google Scholar
Salazar had committed no crimes. Barnes, TV Watchdog Group Is on the Defensive, supra, (www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/business/media/25watchdog.html).Google Scholar
placed membership at 10,000. Eshman, Howard Stern and the Parent’s Television Council Fallacy, supra, (https://jewishjournal.com/opinion/rob_eshman/104052/).Google Scholar
to getting “hate mail from Hitler.” PTC, Broadcast Indecency Campaign (http://w2.parentstv.org/Main/Campaigns/Complaints.aspx); James, Meg, “Family Guy’s” Seth MacFarlane was attacked by this conservative TV watchdog. Now they’re friends, LA Times, May 30, 2019 (www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-col1-seth-macfarlane-parents-television-council-tim-winter-20190530-story.html).Google Scholar
but even those have petered out. PTC, Studies and Reports (http://w2.parentstv.org/main/Research/Reports.aspx).Google Scholar
a staple of PTC’s lobbying and fundraising efforts. Barnes, TV Watchdog Group Is on the Defensive, supra, (www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/business/media/25watchdog.html).Google Scholar
references to marital versus nonmarital sex in TV shows. PTC, Happily Never After (http://w2.parentstv.org/main/MediaFiles/PDF/Studies/Marriagestudy-PDF-4.pdf).Google Scholar
picked up in news stories from Washington to LA. Flint, Joe, PTC Study Shows Almost 70% Jump in Ban Language on Broadcast TV, LA Times, Nov. 9, 2010 (https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/11/ptc-study-shows-almost-70-jump-in-bad-language-on-broadcast-tv.html); Harper, Jennifer, The FCC Bomb, Washington Times, Nov. 9, 2010 (www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/nov/9/inside-the-beltway-255624183/).Google Scholar
during the “safe harbor” period for indecency. PTC, Habitat for Profanity (http://w2.parentstv.org/main/MediaFiles/PDF/Studies/2010_HabitatforProfanity.pdf).Google Scholar
purports to find 6,000 incidents of violence, over 500 deaths, and almost 2,000 profanities. PTC, Not for Kids Anymore (http://w2.parentstv.org/main/MediaFiles/PDF/Studies/Marriagestudy-PDF-4.pdf).Google Scholar
with the 1934 Communications Act through the current policy. PTC, Indecency Timeline (http://w2.parentstv.org/Main/Research/IndecencyTimeline.aspx).Google Scholar
“anyone still dissenting from the LGBTQ agenda.” Bozell, L. Brent III and Graham, Tim, Networks Endorse Taylor Swift’s “Equality” Lobbying, MRC Newsbusters, Aug. 31, 2019 (www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2019/08/31/bozell-graham-column-networks-endorse-taylor-swifts-equality).Google Scholar
“eroding America’s moral character on ‘gay marriage.’” Bozell, L. Brent III, Censoring the “Anti-Gay” Viewpoint, CNS News.com, Jun. 19, 2013 (www.cnsnews.com/blog/l-brent-bozell-iii/censoring-anti-gay-viewpoint); Bozell, L. Brent III, Hollywood’s Gay Marriage Thank You Card, CNS News, May 11, 2012 (www.cnsnews.com/blog/l-brent-bozell-iii/hollywoods-gay-marriage-thank-you-card).Google Scholar
and for airing disrespectful sitcoms during Christian holidays. Bozell, L. Brent III and Graham, Tim, An Unholy Week for Hollywood, CNS News.com, Mar. 25, 2016 (www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/unholy-week-hollywood).Google Scholar
the George Carlin monologue in the Court’s Pacifica decision. Reno v. ACLU, 521 US 844, 871, 874 (1997).Google Scholar
in New York, New Mexico, Michigan, Arizona, Vermont, Virginia, South Carolina, and Ohio. American Library Ass’n v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160 (SDNY 1997); ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F. 3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999); Cyberspace Communications, Inc. v. Engler, 238 F. 3d 420 (6th Cir. 2000); American Booksellers Found. v. Dean, 342 F. 3d 96 (2nd Cir. 2003); PSI Net Inc. v. Chapman, 372 F. 3d 671 (4th Cir. 2004); ACLU v. Goddard, No. Civ. 00-505-ACM (D. Ariz. 2004); Southeast Bookseller’s Ass’n. v. McMaster, 371 F. Supp. 773 (DSC 2005); American Bookseller’s Found. v. Strickland, 2007 WL 2783678 (S. D. Ohio 2007).Google Scholar
PTC recommends that advertisers buy time on MacFarlane’s sci-fi show, The Orville. Meg James, ‘Family Guy’s’ Seth MacFarlane was attacked by this conservative TV watchdog. Now they’re friends, LA Times, May 30, 2019 (www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-col1-seth-macfarlane-parents-television-council-tim-winter-20190530-story.html).Google Scholar
demanded that the FCC impose harsh fines on the Fox network for airing the broadcast. Fox, Megan, NFL’s Raunchy Halftime Show Featuring Jennifer Lopez’s A** Should Result in Harsh Fines for Fox, PJ Media, Feb. 3, 2020 (https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/nfl-gross-out-halftime-show-featuring-jennifer-lopezs-a-should-result-in-harsh-fines-for-fox/).Google Scholar
some of which called the halftime show “soft porn.” Traina, Jimmy, ‘This Is Soft Porn!’ FCC Gets 1,312 Complaints about J-Lo/Shakira Super Bowl Halftime Show, Sports Illustrated, Feb. 26, 2020 (www.si.com/extra-mustard/2020/02/26/jennifer-lopez-shakira-super-bowl-live-halftime-show-fcc-complaints); Elassar, Alaa, Over 1,300 Complaints Were Sent to the FCC about Shakira and J-Lo’s Super Bowl Halftime Show, CNN, Feb. 26, 2020 (www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/us/shakira-jlo-super-bowl-halftime-show-fcc-complaints-trnd/index.html).Google Scholar
to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. What Did You Think of the Super Bowl Halftime Show? (PTC email to membership list, Feb. 7, 2020).Google Scholar
get information slanted in the opposite direction.” Marcuse, Herbert, Repressive Tolerance, in A Critique of Pure Tolerance 95–137 (Paul Wolff, Robert, Moore, Barrington, Jr., and Marcuse, Herbert, eds., Boston: Beacon Press, 1969).Google Scholar
toleration of movements from the Left.” Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance, supra.Google Scholar
an instrument for the continuation of servitude.” Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance, supra.Google Scholar
the liberal creed of free and equal discussion.” Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance, supra.Google Scholar
“Marcuse’s revenge.” Kors, Alan Charles and Silverglate, Harvey A., The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses 67–96 (New York: Harper Collins, 1998).Google Scholar
it implicates a right to do physical violence to another.” Delgado, Richard, Mari Matsuda, Charles R. Lawrence, III, and Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams, Words That Wound 7, 14–15 (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993).Google Scholar
while doing nothing for their victims.” MacKinnon, Catharine, Only Words 12, 109 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).Google Scholar
because that’s the side he has chosen. Fish, Stanley, There’s no Such Thing as Free Speech, and It’s a Good Thing, Too 102–133 (1990) (“There’s no Such Thing as Free Speech”).Google Scholar
reaffirmed his claim that there is no “free speech principle.”) Fish, Stanley, The First: How to Think about Hate Speech, Campus Speech, Religious Speech, Fake News, Post-Truth, and Donald Trump 31–61 (New York: One Signal Publishers, 2019) (“The First”).Google Scholar
“get over it.” Mulvaney Confesses to quid pro quo: Get Over It, CNN, Oct. 18, 2019 (www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/10/18/mulvaney-trump-get-over-it-quid-pro-quo-sot-crn-vpx.cnn).Google Scholar
“pornography is not an idea; pornography is the injury.” American Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 771 F. 2d 323, 324–328 (7th Cir. 1985), aff’d mem, 475 US 1001 (1986).Google Scholar
and because it established a prior restraint. American Booksellers Ass’n, Inc. v. Hudnut, 598 F. Supp. 1316, 1331–1337 (S. D. Ind. 1984).Google Scholar
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision without opinion. Hudnut, 771 F. 2d at 328–331, aff’d mem, 475 US 1001 (1986).Google Scholar
against the possibility of causing offense. The UMW Post, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 774 F. Supp. 1163, 1165, 1169–1175, 1178–1181 (E. D. Wisc. 1991).Google Scholar
it was essentially making up the rules as it went along.” Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852, 867–868 (E. D. Mich. 1989).Google Scholar
are almost always struck down when challenged in court. Delgado, Richard and Stefancic, Jean, Must We Defend Nazis? 31 (New York: New York University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
“have turned free speech into a fetish.” Shiffrin, Steven H., The Dark Side of the First Amendment, 61 UCLA Law. Rev. 1480 (2014);Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
at odds with human dignity. Shiffrin, What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?, supra, at 45.Google Scholar
“some progressives began to suspect they had made a bad First Amendment bargain.” Burt Neuborne, Madison’s Music 106–116 (The New Press, 2015).Google Scholar
would actually promote progressive goals.” Seidman, Louis Michael, Can Free Speech Be Progressive?, 118 Columbia Law Rev. 2219, 2223 (2018).Google Scholar
on traits like race, nationality, gender, class, and sexual orientation.” Seidman, supra, at 2220.Google Scholar
with government interference with listener autonomy.” Seidman, supra, at 2236.Google Scholar
it cannot be progressive.” Seidman, supra, at 2245, 2247.Google Scholar
then why not bias it toward progressives?” Seidman, supra, at 2245, 2247.Google Scholar
because it says things I agree with.” (his italics). Fish, The First, supra, at 11, 19–20.Google Scholar
and not an apolitical oasis of principle.” Fish, The First, supra, at 4.Google Scholar
the necessary vehicle of its implementation.” Fish, The First, supra, at 25.Google Scholar
to protect a free society against the enemies of freedom.” Neier, Aryeh, Defending My Enemy 12 (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979).Google Scholar
even if the temporary beneficiaries are the enemies of freedom.” Neier, supra, at 4–5.Google Scholar
do to you and your speech what you have done to them.” Fish, The First, supra, at 51.Google Scholar
over its defense of free speech principles in the Skokie case. Neier, supra, at 79.Google Scholar
to punish the very groups they ostensibly were enacted to protect. Strossen, Nadine, Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech, Not Censorship (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018).Google Scholar
while in France it is a crime to deny it. Dershowitz, Alan M., The Right Shoe of Censorship Is Now on the Left Foot, Washington Post, Feb. 4, 2018, at B1, 7.Google Scholar
describes like-minded scholars as “polemicists.” Fish, The First, supra, at 43–44.Google Scholar
“by and large,” Waldron, Jeremy, The Harm in Hate Speech 202–203 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
and in many cases counterproductive. Strossen, supra, at 133–156.Google Scholar
the best that can be said for hate speech regulations.” Waldron, supra, at 11.Google Scholar
it is the content that explains the restriction.” Waldron, supra, at 152.Google Scholar
“ongoing engagement in political practice.” Delgado et al., Words That Wound, supra, at 3, 10–11.Google Scholar
“a guide for activist lawyers and judges.” Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 109–133.Google Scholar
“humans are incompetent at designing good rules of censorship.” Jane and Bambauer, Derek, Information Libertarianism, 105 Cal. Law Rev. 335, 365–366 (2017).Google Scholar
nor from petitioning the government. Read, James H., James Madison, The First Amendment Encyclopedia, Middle Tennessee State University, 2009 (https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1220/james-madison).Google Scholar
to put them out of the power of the Legislature to infringe them.” Gazette of the US, Jun. 10, 1789, 67, cols. 2–3 (quoted in Cogan, Neil H., The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins 59 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997)).Google Scholar
off limits to those who bucked the established order.” Jay, Stewart, The Creation of the First Amendment Right to Free Expression: From the Eighteenth Century to the Mid-Twentieth Century, 34 Wm. Mitchell Law Rev. 773 (2008).Google Scholar
that regulation too must be neutral. Fried, Charles, The New First Amendment Jurisprudence: A Threat to Liberty, 59 Univ. of Chicago Law Rev. 225, 226 (1992).Google Scholar
and makes it stick, the case is over.” Fish, There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, supra, at 105; Fish, The First, supra, at 25.Google Scholar
and ‘first amendment revisionists.’” Delgado et al., Words That Wound, supra, at 11.Google Scholar
rather than subtracts from it.” Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 94.Google Scholar
“You might be a redneck if you’ve been married three times and have the same in-laws.” See, e.g., Talk: Jeff Foxworthy, Wikiquote.org (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Foxworthy).Google Scholar
as does ‘redneck.’” Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 95.Google Scholar
“First Amendment fundamentalists.” Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 35, 38, 141, 145; Delgado, Words That Wound, supra.Google Scholar
“the lunacies of America’s rights-crazed culture.” Bork, Robert H., Thanks a Lot, National Review, Apr. 16, 2007 (http://web.archive.org/web/20130410132839).Google Scholar
cyanide-laced Flavor-Aide (a Kool-Aid imitator) in a mass suicide. Batchis, Wayne, The Right’s First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & the Return of Conservative Libertarianism 174 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 2016).Google Scholar
who worship at the altar of white male supremacy. Franks, Mary Anne, The Cult of the Constitution 105–157 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
First Amendment “idolatry” a “fetish.” Shiffrin, What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?, supra, at 1–10.Google Scholar
wooden, or unprincipled. Shiffrin, What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?, supra, at 95.Google Scholar
“to spout the mantra ‘the marketplace of ideas.’” Waldron, supra, at 156–157.Google Scholar
their own personal faith, their own original view.” MacKinnon, supra, Only Words, at 76–77.Google Scholar
that, in his estimation, “overprotect speech.” Fish, The First, supra, at 1, 4.Google Scholar
clichés such as ‘the best cure to bad speech is more speech.’” Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 33.Google Scholar
courts should be free to expand the range of unprotected speech. Shiffrin, What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?, supra, at 71–76.Google Scholar
“I have no answer at all.” Nico Perrino, So to Speak podcast transcript: There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech, Argues Professor Stanley Fish, Nov. 5, 2019 (www.thefire.org/so-to-speak-podcast-transcript-theres-no-such-thing-as-free-speech-argues-professor-stanley-fish/).Google Scholar
no one will believe you.” Rosenberg, Eli, Trump Admitted He Attacks Press to Shield Himself from Negative Coverage, Lesley Stahl Says, Washington Post, May 22, 2018.Google Scholar
“How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment.” Liptak, Adam, How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment, New York Times, Jun. 30, 2018, at 1.Google Scholar
“weaponizing the First Amendment.” Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448, 2501 (Kagan, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
have discovered, in the first amendment, a new weapon.” MacKinnon, supra, Only Words, at 12; Delgado, supra, Words That Wound, at 7, 14.Google Scholar
for White supremacist and male-dominant sexual ends.” MacKinnon, supra, Equality Reading, at 157.Google Scholar
“[W]e’ve weaponized weaponize.” Kelly, John, Everything Is Weaponized Now. This Is a Good Sign for Peace, Slate, Aug. 30, 2016 (https://slate.com/human-interest/2016/08/how-weaponize-became-a-political-cultural-and-internet-term-du-jour.html).Google Scholar
sometimes combined with the claim that free speech has been “weaponized.” Turner, William Bennett, Free Speech for Some 8 (Berkeley, CA: Roaring Forties Press 2019).Google Scholar
that limited bakers to sixty-hour work weeks. Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905).Google Scholar
an unequivocal repudiation’ of what the court has done.” Wasserman, Howard M., Bartnicki as Lochner: Some Thoughts on First Amendment Lochnerism, 33 Northern Kentucky Law Rev. 421 (2006) (quotingGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
the courts have too willingly protected business interests. E.g., Post, Robert, The Constitutional Status of Commercial Speech, 48 UCLA Law Rev. 1 (2000);Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
and whose assumed meaning runs a broad range.” Wasserman, supra, at 457.Google Scholar
to protect “their dear obscenity.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 393, 508; Broun and Leech, supra, at 191.Google Scholar
and just want to “tear down the pure and holy.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 196–197.Google Scholar
except the Infidels, the Liberals, and the Free Lovers.” Anthony Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 393.Google Scholar
“know the game” of tarring their adversaries as “apologists for … evil.” Mencken, A Book of Prefaces, supra, at 255.Google Scholar
construed as it is so men can have their pornography.” MacKinnon, Equality Reading, supra, at 158.Google Scholar
so has to do with the gender dynamics of the abuse.” Franks, supra, at 134.Google Scholar
which found ways to return the favor.” Franks, supra, at 109, 124.Google Scholar
defending Nazis is simply defending Nazis.” Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 109, 161–162.Google Scholar
reluctance to regulate hate speech is related to unconscious racism.” Charles R. Lawrence III, If He Hollers Let Him Go: Regulating Racist Speech on Campus, in Delgado et al., Words That Wound, supra, at 83; see also Delgado et al., Words That Wound, supra, at 11.Google Scholar
that validates prejudices against women, minorities, and fellow liberals.” Franks, supra, at 140.Google Scholar
“Liberalism Is White Supremacy.” Chasm in the Classroom, supra, at 66; Truitt, Francesca, Black Lives Matter Protests American Civil Liberties Union, The Flat Hat, Oct. 2, 2017 (http://flathatnews.com/2017/10/02/black-lives-matter-protests-american-civil-liberties-union/); Soave, Robby, Black Lives Matter Students Shut Down the ACLU’s Campus Free Speech Event because ‘Liberalism Is White Supremacy,’ Reason.com, Oct. 4, 2017 (https://reason.com/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th/).Google Scholar
or defended, obscenity (as he broadly defined it) “moral cancer planters.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 396, 414.Google Scholar
engraved, drawn, or painted.” Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 17, 26.Google Scholar
“to debauch the morals of the young.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 223.Google Scholar
pointed to Comstock-era court decisions as setting the proper standard. Fredric Wertham, What Parents Don’t Know about Comic Books, Ladies’ Home Journal, Nov. 1953, at 219–220; Wertham, Fredric, Seduction of the Innocent 330–333 (New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc., 1954) (New York: Main Road Books, Inc., 2004 ed.).Google Scholar
involves protections for commercial speech. E.g., Piety, Tamara, Brandishing the First Amendment: Commercial Expression in America (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2012).Google Scholar
“has led us to plainly unacceptable results.” Shiffrin, What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?, supra, at 186 (emphasis added).Google Scholar
“depends entirely on one’s political leanings.” Jane and Bambauer, Derek, Information Libertarianism, 105 Cal. Law. Rev. 335 (2017).Google Scholar
“cater[] to the animal in man.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 168–169.Google Scholar
Morals stand first.” Comstock, Morals Versus Art, supra, at 5.Google Scholar
merely a particularly offensive mode of expression.” Bork, Robert H., An End to Political Judging?, National Review, Dec. 31, 1990, at 30; Batchis, supra, at 1.Google Scholar
no “ideas” except the subordination of women. MacKinnon, Equality Reading, supra, at 157; MacKinnon, Only Words, supra, at 21.Google Scholar
is immune to any curative effect of “more speech.” Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 72–74, 94, 146, 155.Google Scholar
condemns all efforts to regulate racist speech.” Lawrence, If He Hollers Let Him Go, in Delgado et al., Words That Wound, supra, at 57.Google Scholar
is necessary to protect the free speech of all.” Franks, supra, at 16.Google Scholar
“Jews Will Not Replace Us.” Lord, Debbie, What Happened at Charlottesville: Looking Back on the Rally That Ended in Death, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 10, 2018 (www.ajc.com/news/national/what-happened-charlottesville-looking-back-the-anniversary-the-deadly-rally/fPpnLrbAtbxSwNI9BEy93K/).Google Scholar
plowed his car into a group of counter-protesters. Lord, Debbie, What Happened at Charlottesville: Looking Back on the Rally That Ended in Death, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Aug. 10, 2018 (www.ajc.com/news/national/what-happened-charlottesville-looking-back-the-anniversary-the-deadly-rally/fPpnLrbAtbxSwNI9BEy93K/).Google Scholar
both joy and sorrow, and … inflict great pain.” Snyder v. Phelps, 562 US 443, 453–455,460–461 (2011).Google Scholar
thus deserve no First Amendment protection. Shiffrin, What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?, supra, at 18–19.Google Scholar
produced by its collision with error.” John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Ch. II (1859).Google Scholar
a constitutional right to gay marriage. Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).Google Scholar
no major incidents of violence. Reilly, Katie, Thousands of Counter-Protestors March Against White Nationalism in Boston a Week after Charlottesville, Time, Aug. 19, 2017 (https://time.com/4907681/boston-free-speech-rally-protests-charlottesville/).Google Scholar
without any serious injuries or property damage. Danner, Chas, Tens of Thousands March Against Hatred and White Supremacy in Boston, Overwhelm “Free Speech” Rally, New York Magazine, Aug. 19, 2017 (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/thousands-march-against-right-wing-rally-in-boston.htm).Google Scholar
greatly outnumbered by thousands of counter-protestors. Lopez, German, Unite the Right 2018 Was a Pathetic Failure, Vox.com, Aug. 12, 2018 (www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/12/17681444/unite-the-right-rally-dc-charlottesville-failure); Bovard, James, Pathetic Unite the Right and Angry Antifa Sputter. There’s Still Time to Heed Rodney King, USA Today, Aug. 13, 2018 (www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/08/12/unite-right-sputters-antifa-fails-hopeful-signs-america-column/971952002/).Google Scholar
“once we take away the right to free speech, we may never get it back.” Remarks of Susan Bro at Open Future Festival Chicago, Oct. 5, 2019 (https://youtu.be/_4t12rS6_jo?t=11522).Google Scholar
that necessarily polluted society. Broun and Leech, supra, at 80–81.Google Scholar
impurity of thought and deed.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 5–6, 21, 25.Google Scholar
It therefore is sex.” MacKinnon, Only Words, supra, at 17.Google Scholar
“racial and/or gender-based terrorism.” MacKinnon, Equality Reading, supra, at 141, 157.Google Scholar
move it over into the category of action.” Fish, The First, supra, at 44–45.Google Scholar
for debate is not what he is offering.” Barrett, Lisa Feldman, When Is Speech Violence?, New York Times, Jul. 14, 2017 (www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html).Google Scholar
an adverse emotional reaction to a provocative speaker. Jesse Singal, Stop Telling Students Free Speech Is Traumatizing Them, New York Magazine, Jul. 18, 2017 (http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/students-free-speech-trauma.html); Haidt, Jonathan and Lukianoff, Greg, Why It’s a Bad Idea to Tell Students Words Are Violence, The Atlantic, Jul. 18, 2017 (www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-its-a-bad-idea-to-tell-students-words-are-violence/533970/).Google Scholar
“pollution” of the social environment that can be banned. Waldron, supra, at 16, 33.Google Scholar
undo legal barriers to defamation suits (or, as Trump would say, “open up the libel laws”). MacKinnon, Equality Reading, supra, at 159–160.Google Scholar
who oppose pornography, for example.” MacKinnon, Only Words, supra, at 79, 81.Google Scholar
“a worse evil than yellow fever or small pox.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 6, 12, 28, 41, 133, 136.Google Scholar
the “recruiting stations for hell.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 21, 25, 48–49.Google Scholar
Must you not take into account the neighbor’s children?” US Congress, Juvenile Delinquency (Comic Books): Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency, 83rd Cong., 2nd Sess. 84 (Apr. 21–22 and Jun. 24, 1954) (testimony of Dr. Fredric Wertham).Google Scholar
“lies, pure and simple, about women’s and children’s sexuality.” MacKinnon, Equality Reading, supra, at 141, 158.Google Scholar
on the discrete minority of drunk drivers.” Waldron, supra, at 203.Google Scholar
not selling whiskey to children is a restraint of trade.” Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, supra, at xi n. 17, 302–305.Google Scholar
and young adults to recharge their cell phones”). Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 148.Google Scholar
or destroys all faith in God.” Comstock, Traps for the Young, supra, at 199.Google Scholar
“without regard to the rights, morals or liberties of others.” Broun and Leech, supra, at 175.Google Scholar
to cancel as commencement speaker at Rutgers University. Perez-Pena, Richard, After Protests, I.M.F. Chief Withdraws as Smith College’s Commencement Speaker, New York Times, May 12, 2014; Emma, G. Fitzsimmons, Condoleezza Rice Backs Out of Rutgers Speech after Student Protests, New York Times, May 3, 2014; Perez-Pena, Richard and Vega, Tanzina, Brandeis Cancels Plan to Give Honorary Degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Critic of Islam, New York Times, Apr. 8, 2014.Google Scholar
Attorney General Eric Holder, and comedian Bill Maher. Lukianoff, Greg and Haidt, Jonathan, The Coddling of the American Mind 48 (New York: Penguin, 2018).Google Scholar
a sevenfold increase in efforts to cancel speakers. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Nationwide: Colleges Across the Country Disinvite Commencement Speakers (www.thefire.org/cases/disinvitation-season/). See also Pomp and Circumstances: Booted Speakers Raise Academic Concerns, NBC News, May 2, 2014 (www.nbcnews.com/news/education/pomp-circumstances-booted-speakers-raise-academic-concerns-n90141).Google Scholar
and almost half – 46 percent – were successful. Lukianoff and Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, supra, at 47.Google Scholar
but to engage in “virtue signaling.” So to Speak Podcast: The 100th Episode, The State of Free Speech in America, Dec. 12, 2019 (www.thefire.org/so-to-speak-podcast-the-100th-episode-the-state-of-free-speech-in-america/).Google Scholar
to get more of one, you must have less of the other. Delgado, Must We Defend Nazis?, supra, at 114–115.Google Scholar
unprotected by the First Amendment.” MacKinnon, Only Words, supra, at 71, 108.Google Scholar
“an effect of the principle for the principle itself.” Fried, supra, at 226–227.Google Scholar
“a replay of McCarthyism;” MacKinnon, Only Words, supra, at 76–77; MacKinnon, Equality Reading, supra, at 140, 142.Google Scholar
and “at war with free thought.” Seidman, supra, at 2247.Google Scholar
encircling the ousted speaker and shouting more loudly. Chasm in the Classroom, supra, at 66; Truitt, Francesca, Black Lives Matter Protests American Civil Liberties Union, The Flat Hat, Oct. 2, 2017 (http://flathatnews.com/2017/10/02/black-lives-matter-protests-american-civil-liberties-union/); Soave, Robby, Black Lives Matter Students Shut Down the ACLU’s Campus Free Speech Event Because ‘Liberalism Is White Supremacy,’ Reason.com, Oct. 4, 2017 (https://reason.com/2017/10/04/black-lives-matter-students-shut-down-th/).Google Scholar
and concussion in the resulting scuffle. Lukianoff and Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, supra, at 87–88; Chemerinsky and Gillman, supra; Whittington, Keith E., Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech 107–108 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018); Chasm in the Classroom, supra, at 30.Google Scholar
former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Pasha-Robinson, Lucy, Berkeley Cancels Milo Yiannopoulos Speech after Violent Protests Erupt, The Independent, Feb. 2, 2017 (www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uc-berkeley-cancels-milo-yiannopoulos-speech-after-violent-protests-erupt-a7559056.html); Chasm in the Classroom, supra, at 32–33.Google Scholar
had appearances disrupted at several other universities. Chasm in the Classroom, supra, at 32–33.Google Scholar
a speech by right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter. Russomanno, Joseph, Speech on Campus: How America’s Crisis in Confidence Is Eroding America’s Free Speech Values, 45 Hastings Const. Law Quarterly 273, 274 (Winter 2018); Thomas Fuller and Stephanie Saul, Berkeley Reschedules Coulter, but She Vows to Keep Original Date for Speech, New York Times, Apr. 21, 2017, at A14.Google Scholar
Claremont McKenna College, and (again) Berkeley. Shibley, Robert, Colleges Are Ground Zero for Mob Attacks on Free Speech, Lawyer Says, Washington Post, Mar. 7, 2017. See Holley, Peter, A Conservative Author Tried to Speak as a Liberal Arts College. He Left Fleeing an Angry Mob, Washington Post, Mar. 4, 2017.Google Scholar
far more pro-free speech than that put forward by the liberals.” Bray, Mark, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook 144, 148 (Melville House 2017).Google Scholar
is a real mental condition. Whitley, Rob, Is “Trump Derangement Syndrome” a Real Mental Condition?, Psychology Today, Jan. 4, 2019.Google Scholar
Barack Obama, the Clintons, and Al Gore. Bush Derangement Syndrome, Rationalwiki (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome).Google Scholar
were making a comeback in Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Clark, Fiona, Is Psychiatry Being Used for Political Repression in Russia?, 383 The Lancet, Jan. 11, 2014 (www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)62706-3/fulltext); Political Abuse of Psychiatry in the Soviet Union, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union).Google Scholar
15 percent of forensic psychiatric cases had political connections. Munro, Robin, Dangerous Minds: Political Psychiatry in China Today and Its Origins in the Mao Era (Human Rights Watch, 2002); Political Abuse of Psychiatry, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry).Google Scholar
“delusional disorders” of racism and homophobia. Gilman, Sander and Thomas, James M., Are Racists Crazy? How Prejudice, Racism, and Antisemitism Became Markers of Insanity (New York: New York University Press, 2016); Onion, Rebecca, Is Racism a Disease?, Slate.com, Nov. 17, 2016 (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/is-racism-a-psychological-disorder.html).Google Scholar
including racism, sexism, and classism. Kors, Alan, Thought Reform 101: The Orwellian Implications of Today’s College Orientation, Reason.com, Mar. 2000 (https://reason.com/2000/03/01/thought-reform-101-2/#).Google Scholar
when it should be called plainly evil.” Onion, Is Racism a Disease?, supra.Google Scholar
(as Ezra Heywood said of Comstock). Heywood, Ezra H., Cupid’s Yokes 11–12 (Princeton, MA: Co-Operative Publishing Co., 1876).Google Scholar
the 1984 mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap. Up to Eleven, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven).Google Scholar
and takes away his sense of proportion.” Chafee, Zechariah, Jr., Free Speech in the United States 532–533 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1941).Google Scholar
The very fact [that] he is a censor indicates that. Heywood Broun, Broun on Censorship (epilogue to Broun and Leech, supra, at 275).Google Scholar
how we must learn to deal with that reality. Bollinger, Lee C. and Stone, Geoffrey R., The Free Speech Century 4 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).Google Scholar
inspiration that goes beyond literal holdings.” Kalven, Harry, Jr., A Worthy Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America xviii–xix (New York: Harper & Row, 1988).Google Scholar
Because They Aren’t Up for Negotiation.’” Williamson, Kevin, The Smallest Minority: Independent Thinking in the Age of Mob Politics 54 n.4 (Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 2019).Google Scholar
they depend on the outcome of no elections.” Barnette v. West Virginia Board of Education, 319 US 624, 638 (1943).Google Scholar
should not interpret the law based on mid-Victorian morals. United States v. Kennerley, 209 F. 119 (SDNY 1913).Google Scholar
which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias.” Dillard, Irving (ed.), The Spirit of Liberty: Papers and Addresses of Learned Hand 189–191 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960).Google Scholar
to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.” The quote is attributed to Russell in a 1940 Reader’s Digest article, but its origin is disputed (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell).Google Scholar
answers to life’s great questions (or even little ones). Rauch, Jonathan, Kindly Inquisitors 31–56 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993/2013).Google Scholar
“there is no such thing as absolute certainty.” Mill, John Stuart, “On Liberty” and Other Writings 8 (Collini, Stefan ed. 1989).Google Scholar
we “have been cock-sure of many things that were not so.” Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Natural Law, 32 Harvard Law rev. 40 (1918).Google Scholar
the possibility that prior understandings will be displaced.” Blasi, Vincent, Holmes and the Marketplace of Ideas, 2004 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 19 (2004).Google Scholar
facilitated by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Batchis, Wayne, The Right’s First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech & the Return of Conservative Libertarianism 17 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar
that could save America’s youth from “moral death.” Comstock, Frauds Exposed, supra, at 425.Google Scholar
“you have no doubt of your premises or your power.” Abrams v. United States, 250 US 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
that the First Amendment goes too far. Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment Survey 2014 (www.newseuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FAC_sofa_2002report.pdf).Google Scholar
disagreed that “the First Amendment goes too far.” Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment Survey 2017 (www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment/2017-report/).Google Scholar
back up to 74 percent despite continuing political turmoil. Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment Survey 2018 (www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/state-of-the-first-amendment/2018-report/).Google Scholar
and only 13 percent said that it does. Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment Survey 2014 (www.newseuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FAC_sofa_2012report.pdf).Google Scholar
in 2019 said they believed that the First Amendment does go too far. Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment Survey 2019 (www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SOFAreport2019.pdf).Google Scholar
“We have always been a people of anarchistic tendencies.” Ernst, Morris, Sex Wins in America, The Nation, Aug. 10, 1932, at 124.Google Scholar
dissenting from authority “is in our DNA.” Parker, Kathleen, China Won’t Die Laughing. Just Ask “South Park.” Washington Post, Oct. 9, 2019, at A19.Google Scholar
48 percent believed that “the news media is the enemy of the American people.” Stein, Sam, New Poll: 43% of Republicans Want to Give Trump the Power to Shut Down Media, The Daily Beast, Aug. 7, 2018 (www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media).Google Scholar
the level of support has increased over time (except for the racist). Murphy, Justin, Who’s Afraid of Free Speech in the United States? (https://jmrphy.net/blog/2018/02/16/who-is-afraid-of-free-speech/) (updated Sept. 21, 2019); Yglesias, Matthew, Everything We Think About the Political Correctness Debate Is Wrong, Vox, Mar. 12, 2018 (www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data).Google Scholar
freedom from speech rather than freedom of speech.” Lukianoff, Greg, Campus Free Speech Has Been in Trouble for a Long Time, Cato Unbound, Jan. 4, 2016 (www.cato-unbound.org/2016/01/04/greg-lukianoff/campus-free-speech-has-been-trouble-long-time).Google Scholar
will not be exposed to whatever it is that may upset them. America, Pen, And Campus for All: Diversity, Inclusion, and Freedom of Speech at U.S. Universities (Oct. 17, 2016), at 18–25; National Coalition Against Censorship, What’s All This about Trigger Warnings? (Dec. 2015), at 1–5.Google Scholar
were making up a growing proportion of the student population. Lukianoff and Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, supra, at 30, 146–147; Soave, Robby, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump 7–8 (New York: All Points Press, 2019).Google Scholar
demands for safe spaces and trigger warnings. Lukianoff and Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, supra, at 125–194.Google Scholar
have come from both the political left and the right. Lukianoff and Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, supra, at 133–140.Google Scholar
and prevent disruptions of the educational environment.” Chemerinsky, Erwin and Gillman, Howard, Free Speech on Campus 12–14, 18–19 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
65 percent of those over fifty and 76 percent of the younger respondents. Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment Survey 2019 (www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SOFAreport2019.pdf), at 6.Google Scholar
a generally higher tolerance for censorship among younger people. Freedom Forum First Amendment Center, State of the First Amendment Survey 2019 (www.freedomforuminstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SOFAreport2019.pdf), at 7.Google Scholar
supported banning the wearing of costumes that stereotype certain racial or ethnic groups. Gallup, Inc., Free Expression on Campus: A Survey of U.S. College Students and U.S. Adults 12 (2016).Google Scholar
sexist, homophobic or otherwise offensive.” Lukianoff, Campus Free Speech Has Been in Trouble for a Long Time, supra.Google Scholar
not exposed to intolerant and offensive ideas.” Lukianoff and Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind, supra, at 48.Google Scholar
promoting an inclusive and welcoming society. Gallup/Knight Foundation Survey, Free Expression on Campus: What College Students Think about First Amendment Issues 9 (https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/publications/pdfs/000/000/248/original/Knight_Foundation_Free_Expression_on_Campus_2017.pdf); John., S. and James, L. Knight Foundation, Free Expression on College Campuses 6 (May 2019) (https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/351/original/Knight-CP-Report-FINAL.pdf).Google Scholar
generally remain, the most supportive of free speech.” Murphy, Justin, Who’s Afraid of Free Speech in the United States? (https://jmrphy.net/blog/2018/02/16/who-is-afraid-of-free-speech/) (updated Sept. 21, 2019).Google Scholar
and that “[c]ollege graduates are more supportive than non-graduates.” Murphy, Who’s Afraid of Free Speech in the United States?; Yglesias, Everything We Think about the Political Correctness Debate Is Wrong, supra (www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/12/17100496/political-correctness-data).Google Scholar
“[v]ery few students are willing to come out and say they are against free speech.” Pen America, Chasm in the Classroom: Campus Free Speech in a Divided America (Apr. 2, 2019), at 61.Google Scholar
so many students simultaneously advocate censorship and free speech.” Pen America, Chasm in the Classroom, supra, at 62–63.Google Scholar
will enable our diverse population to live together peaceably.” Pen America, Chasm in the Classroom, supra, at 9.Google Scholar
a greater willingness among students of this age group to silence disfavored speakers. Stevens, Sean and Haidt, Jonathan, The Skeptics Are Wrong Part 1: Attitudes about Free Speech on Campus Are Changing (Mar. 19, 2018) (https://heterodoxacademy.org/skeptics-are-wrong-about-campus-speech/).Google Scholar
as bad as holding racist views yourself.” Stevens, Sean, The Skeptics Are Wrong Part 2: Free Culture on Campus Is Changing (Apr. 11, 2018) (https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-part-2/).Google Scholar
a pro-police Blue Lives Matter advocate. Stevens, Sean, The Skeptics Are Wrong Part 3: Political Intolerance Levels on Campus Are High, and Here Is Why (May 11, 2018) (https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-skeptics-are-wrong-part-3-intolerance-levels-are-high/).Google Scholar
Lenny Bruce, draft card burners, or George Carlin.” Chemerinsky and Gillman, supra, at 10–11.Google Scholar
may outweigh free speech values.” Shiffrin, Steven H., What’s Wrong with the First Amendment? 190–191 (London: Cambridge University Press, 2016).Google Scholar
who insist that speech is violence. Rohde, Stephen, A Failed Case Against Free Speech, Los Angeles Review of Books, Mar. 17, 2020.Google Scholar
“You gotta go to the streets and be as violent as Antifa and BLM [Black Lives Matter].” Mogelson, Luke, Among the Insurrectionists, The New Yorker, Jan. 15, 2021 (www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/25/among-the-insurrectionists).Google Scholar
“you’re not going to have a country anymore.” Remnick, David, The Inciter-in-Chief, The New Yorker, Jan. 9, 2021 (www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/18/the-inciter-in-chief).Google Scholar
called for “trial by combat.” Mogelson, Luke, Among the Insurrectionists, The New Yorker, Jan. 15, 2021 (www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/01/25/among-the-insurrectionists).Google Scholar
must be defeated before they achieve traction.” Titley, Gavan, Is Free Speech Racist? (Cambridge: Polity, 2020); Rohde, Stephen, Free Speech and the Question of Race, Los Angeles Review of Books, Jan. 24, 2021.Google Scholar
“anyone whose political philosophy involves the oppression of others, does not deserve a right to speak.” Moskowitz, P. E., The Case Against Free Speech 107 (New York: Bold Type Books, 2019).Google Scholar
showed up with rifles.” Moskowitz, The Case Against Free Speech, at 15–17.Google Scholar
for future dissenters and reformers to hold the powerful to account.” Nossel, Suzanne, Keep Our Free Speech Laws Intact, New York Times, Jan. 17, 2021, Section SR, Page 7.Google Scholar
or who failed to show him “proper” respect. Pen American Center, Inc. v. Trump, 448 F. Supp. 3d 309 (SDNY 2020).Google Scholar
without first determining whether such a claim could be made under state law. McKesson v. Doe, 141 S.Ct. 48, 51 (2020).Google Scholar
in the most real sense, un-American.” Abrams, Floyd, Is a Free Press a Threat to Freedom?, 2 Communications and the Law 67, 78–79 (1980).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Robert Corn-Revere
  • Book: The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder
  • Online publication: 07 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417065.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Robert Corn-Revere
  • Book: The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder
  • Online publication: 07 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417065.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Robert Corn-Revere
  • Book: The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder
  • Online publication: 07 October 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316417065.013
Available formats
×