MARC Record from marc_openlibraries_sanfranciscopubliclibrary

LEADER: 03900cam a2200505Ii 4500
001 ocn946161367
003 OCoLC
005 20170322094102.0
008 160407s2017 nyua b 001 0 eng d
020 $a9781479880287$q(hardback : acid-free paper)
020 $a1479880280$q(hardback : acid-free paper)
035 $a(OCoLC)946161367
040 $aYDXCP$beng$erda$cYDXCP$dBTCTA$dBDX$dOCLCQ$dCDX$dGUB$dGZL$dIGA$dOU9$dFSP$dABG$dCOO$dCNCGM$dUCL$dTOH$dLSD$dDYJ$dUPM$dMBB$dCPP$dEMI$dOCLCF$dSFR
043 $an-us---
049 $aSFRA
050 14 $aKF4772$b.T87 2017
050 4 $aK3254$b.T87 2017
082 04 $a342.7308/53$223
092 $a342.0853$bT871f
100 1 $aTushnet, Mark V.,$d1945-$eauthor.
245 10 $aFree speech beyond words :$bthe surprising reach of the First Amendment /$cMark V. Tushnet, Alan K. Chen, and Joseph Blocher.
264 1 $aNew York :$bNew York University Press,$c[2017]
300 $avii, 261 pages :$billustrations ;$c24 cm
336 $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337 $aunmediated$bn$2rdamedia
338 $avolume$bnc$2rdacarrier
504 $aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 181-253) and index.
505 0 $aInstrumental music and the First Amendment -- Art and the First Amendment -- Nonsense and the Freedom of Speech : what meaning means for the First Amendment -- Going further : additional problems and concluding thoughts.
520 $a"The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Jackson Pollock's paintings, Arnold Schöenberg's music, and Lewis Carroll's poem 'Jabberwocky' are 'unquestionably shielded' by the First Amendment. Nonrepresentational art, instrumental music, and nonsense: all receive constitutional coverage under an amendment protecting 'the freedom of speech,' even though none involves what we typically think of as speech-- the use of words to convey meaning. As a legal matter, the Court's conclusion is clearly correct, but its premises are murky, and they raise difficult questions about the possibilities and limitations of law and expression. Nonrepresentational art, instrumental music, and nonsense do not employ language in any traditional sense, and sometimes do not even involve the transmission of articulable ideas. How, then, can they be treated as 'speech' for constitutional purposes? What does the difficulty of that question suggest for First Amendment law and theory? And can law resolve such inquiries without relying on aesthetics, ethics, and philosophy? Comprehensive and compelling, this book represents a sustained effort to account, constitutionally, for these modes of 'speech.' While it is firmly centered in debates about First Amendment issues, it addresses them in a novel way, using subject matter that is uniquely well suited to the task, and whose constitutional salience has been under-explored. Drawing on existing legal doctrine, aesthetics, and analytical philosophy, three celebrated law scholars show us how and why speech beyond words should be fundamental to our understanding of the First Amendment"--$cPublisher's website.
610 10 $aUnited States.$tConstitution.$n1st Amendment.
650 0 $aFreedom of speech$xCross-cultural studies.
650 0 $aFreedom of speech$zUnited States.
700 1 $aChen, Alan,$eauthor.
700 1 $aBlocher, Joseph,$eauthor.
907 $a.b33152147$b03-16-18$c12-29-16
998 $axgi$b03-22-17$cm$da $e-$feng$gnyu$h0$i0
907 $a.b33152147$b04-12-17$c12-29-16
938 $aBrodart$bBROD$n117026409
938 $aBaker and Taylor$bBTCP$nBK0018674443
938 $aYBP Library Services$bYANK$n12932617
980 $a0317 aw tp
998 $axgi$b03-22-17$cm$da$e-$feng$gnyu$h0$i0
994 $aC0$bSFR
999 $yMARS
945 $a342.0853$bT871f$d - - $e05-12-2018 10:38$f0$g0$h05-23-18$i31223118830299$j503$0503$k - - $lxgici$o-$p$28.00$q-$r-$s- $t0$u6$v2$w0$x5$y.i89838580$z04-12-17