(3rd ed. 2008)
1. Blackstone -- 1918
2. Bad Tendency: speech intend to cause substantive evil, any likelihood of efficient...
3. Hand in
basis: 1.
2. history: congress couldn't mean punish free-speech like that...
4.
"于我而言，追究意见的表达是全然合理的。……But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their won conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas - that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. ... It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment."
1. 显然有社会达尔文主义情结，"市场"这个比喻的重点在于"竞争"
(idea against idea)，而不是"买卖"。
2. We don't know what we know, we are often wrong, and these lunatics turned out to be right.
3. Truth is changing, socially constructed phenomena is changing, 如果意味着当下的多数可以控制少数，那么少数永远不会变成多数，
社会也就不会转变。
4. Truth shouldn't be defined those who has power shutting up others. Truth should be defined through competition.
问题：如果真的是Silly opinion, why giving him the freedom of speech so important?
因为谁都可能是错的，it's not the value (of the speech) we cares. "competition" matters.
Holmes希望这个傻意见进入角斗场，被杀得片甲不留。
推荐阅读：
The Metaphysical Club: A Story of Ideas in America
Gitlow v. NY
statute:
与Espanage Act不同：
1. Criminalizing teaching an idea.
2. no war time (所以该言论原本应该比前几个要less dangerous)
3. violent usurper the gov't （与之前的反战和号召罢工相比要more dangerous）
4. state law (court assume 1st Am is incorporated) -->14th Am使州也不行
Four kinds of Speech
① criticizing gov't (policy)
Schenck(through democratic action)
② advocacy of "law breaking" in abstract (philosophical principle)
③ advocacy of law breaking in the future
Gitlow
④ advocacy of law breaking now
Abrams
Ct: P37 Bad Tendency: Gov't act as self-preservation.
Holmes: no present danger to overthrow the gov't.
-1. danger must be
imminent (可以惩罚④，不可以惩罚③)
put teeth in this (Cf. Abrams: present but not clear)
-2. deference: how much deference should the court give legislature to punish speech?
majority: 本案与Espanage Act的不同：actually regulating speech与regulating conduct
They set the law (aparticular kind of speech is dangerous). It's reasonable use of police power, no room for interpretation in this case.
law after the case:
where legislative outlaw certain kind of speech under itself power, courts must follow.
如果立法者没有直接regulate speech，则用Schenck的"C&PD"（虽然实际上的意思还是BT test）
radical <---->moral socialist (所谓"communists与socialists的分野")
statute: "knowingly become a member of a group organiaze to advocate criminal syndicalism"
不同：membership of a group
Ct: Majority: State can criminalize the group/membership under its police power, not arbitrary or unreasonable
Brandeis concurring (奇怪的技术性concurring):
Association + Advocacy Issue, 5 points:
1. imminent: unless advocate imminent law breaking
2. serious: the kind of law-breaking （就算是现实的号召，也要严重到一定程度）
trespass, danger must be relatively serious
3.
rationale for protecting speech P42-P43, P43
❚
1.言论自由是自治所必须的，除非紧急到没有时间讨论，否则永远应该通过讨论而不是禁止。
2.make better people
3. 这样解读宪法先让过度诠释，而不是立宪者原意
4. counter-speech is an essential mechanism to protect free speech
remedy is more speech, through public debate, not shut up
错误言论会被counter-speech纠正，若不能纠正，then be brave.
帕拉克里斯：freedom/courage
faith in institution: counter speech + character
5. deference: rebuttal of the presumption （如果不是C-PD，则应充分辩论）
以上：Holmes -Brandeis以少数派意见的形式建立了一个流派传统（C-
PD）
P42-P43
❚
接上3. rationale for protecting speech
什么是free speech?为何重要？为何要保护？
1.counter-speech: 首次提出procedure mechanism of protecting free speech
response to bad speech is more speech
2. the final aim of state is fulfill men's faculty --> liberty is both end and means.
两点：1. better governance ourselves
2. people's courage -->从参与free speech的过程中，we get better people
free speech <-->character <--> better people
历史渊源：Peloponnesian War, Pericles' funeral speech of the Athenian War Dead
(
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/athens/athens.html)
从该讲话里衍生出来（democracy and character）
Courage 是对所有人而言的，sometimes democratic process leads to bad outcomes, but it is still the best institution we can have. Self-governance need courage and character <--> make better people.
PS. Witney并非典型案例？她是一位大法官的侄女，
服刑十余天后被州长赦免。
P46 Note 6(下列1-4)，Note 7(下列5) The time between
Dennis to
Witney
1. philosophical theory:
modernism: human beings can seek truth
2. Bifurcated review project (in judical) -------rights
20世纪初，大家对rights的意识主要是财产权，这时候开始改变
New Deal后，economic rights不断下降——这解释了liberal为何如此恐惧communist，因为财产权是一切自由的基础。
而policital rights 则不断上升（new democratic）
(图表，Loch)
New Deal之前，很多财产权案，很少1st Am案，New Deal之后相反。
Courts bifurcate rights, put liberty higher
3. Cases
Witney(1927) - 1937
Courts invalided 3 cases technically
1.
Fiske (1927) lack of evidence --> advocate solicite...
--------> Due process case
2.
Herden(1937) solicite people join communist party --->insufficient
没引
Fiske
Rationale on freedom of speech on assembling, not general due process
3.
De Jonge (1937) assisting the conduct of meeting of a CP
court invalid the statute
meeting alone is not enough, no evidence about the content of the meeting.
重要的不是会议，而是意图，不是人们之间的关系，而是他们做啥
peaceful assembling of lawful discussion cannot be criminallized
事实上这些案件与以前不同的是shift of attitudes of courts (apply law to facts)
show the existing law can be more protect or not depend on the justices' view on free speech.
Stromburg v. California(1931) -->书里没说
State statute forbid red flag用于政治目的（opposition to gov't）
D: Communist Children Camp raise a red flag 并宣誓……
Ct: invalid the statute,
a. symblic speech: waving flag is free speech
b. overbroad docrine: language to broad, even to peaceful conduct
编写书的方式总是开始大家处于黑暗年代，只有几位智者的意见闪耀光辉，然后不断好转；事实上可能不是直线上升而是波浪上升。1930s的言论自由程度比1950s笼罩在红色阴影下的时候高。
4. Carolene product （1938）
Stone：Economic regulation is rational
著名的"Footnote 4": narrow in 1st, 14th Am + citations
1. curving out the scope of important liberties, first and for most, 1st Am
2. strike down economic rights
5. C+PD
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Gobitis : case dismissed
Barnette: reverse on free-speech basis (compel speech)
二战时候倒没出现太多supress speech的事情，因为有一个信念是"
既然我们在跟法西斯作战，那么就不能做他们才做的事情"。
但战后的情况就完全不同了。
