For Honors 251, Freedom of Expression®
Anthony Lewis writes on p. xiv of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate:
“When a constitutional provision has no discernible history, as is true of the First Amendment — no meaningful discussion by its authors of what they meant — how do judges begin to build on its words to decide concrete cases?
I would like us to answer and discuss this question via comments to this post. Feel free to post more than once, but please post at least once some of your thoughts on this question. I would also like us to respond and react to each other via the comments.
How are judges to determine for themselves what, for example, the 45 words of the First Amendment mean in specific circumstances, like prayer in public schools, student press freedoms, when and where people can protest? What should guide their interpretations? What approach should they take?
Posted by brian carroll