A theory of free speech as participatory democracy: considerations from Robert Post and James Weinstein
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5007/1677-2954.2023.e94923Keywords:
Freedom of speech, Democratic selfgovernment, Participatory democracy, Robert Post, James WeinsteinAbstract
This work is about the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. More specifically, from the perspective of Robert Post and James Weinstein and their participatory theory. It aims to present the theory of the authors, and to do so, the first part presents the theory of Alexander Meiklejohn, who first systematized the relationship between the realization of democratic self-government and state protection of individual speech rights. After that, it is exposed the theory of Robert Post and James Weinstein, that links the defense of the individual right of expression to the concretization of democratic self-government, but using a justification based on the political action of the speakers instead of benefits to the audience. At last, from Post and Weistein, it highlights participatory theory’s main argument against the ruing idea of freedom of speech based on autonomy.
References
BAKER, Edwin C. Is democracy a sound basis for a free speech principle? Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 515-529, maio 2011. Disponível em: <http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/democracy-sound-basis-free-speech-principle>. Acesso em: 19 nov. 2018.
BAKER, Edwin. Autonomy and free speech. Constitutional Commentary, v. 27, p. 251-282, outubro 2011. Disponível em: <https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/163434/2-Baker-272-AutonomyAndFreeSpeech3.pdf;sequence=1>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
BAKER, Edwin. Steve Shiffrin: friend and scholar. Loyola Law Review, v. 41, p. 49-51, set. 2007. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2596&context=llr>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
BLASI, Vincent. Democratic Participation and the Freedom of Speech: A Response to Post and Weinstein. Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 531- 540, 2011. Disponível em: <http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/democratic-participation-and-freedom-speech-response-post-and-weinstein>. Acesso em: 19 nov. 2018.
BRENNAN, William J. The Supreme Court and the Meiklejohn Interpretation of the First Amendment. Harvard Law Review, v. 79, n. 1, p. 1-20, nov. 1965.
FISS, Owen M., Free Speech and Social Structure. Iowa Law Review, p. 1405-1425, 1986. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1210>. Acesso em: 19 nov. 2018.
FISS, Owen. The irony of free speech. Harvard University Press, 1998.
JARYMOWICZ, Thomas. Robert Post’s theory of freedom of speech: A critique of the reductive conception of political liberty. Philosophy & Social Criticism, v. 40, n.1, p. 107–123, jan. 2014.
LEE, C.; FERGUSON, B.; EARLEY, D. After Citizens United: the story in the states. New York: Brennan Center, 2014. Disponível em: <https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/after-citizens-united-story-states>. Acesso em: 07 jan. 2019.
MACEDO JÚNIOR, Ronaldo Porto. Liberdade de expressão: que lições devemos aprender da experiência americana? Revista Direito GV, v. 13, n. 1, p. 274-302, mai. 2017. Disponível em: <http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/revdireitogv/article/view/68919>. Acesso em: 07 Jul. 2018.
MEIKLEJOHN, Alexander. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government. New York: Harper Brothers Publishers, 1948.
MEIKLEJOHN, Alexander. The first amendment is an absolute. The Supreme Court Review, v. 1961, p. 245-266, 1961. Disponível em: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/3108719?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: a reply. Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 617-632, maio 2011. Disponível em: <http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/participatory-democracy-theory-free-speech-reply>. Acesso em: 19 nov. 2018.
POST, Robert. Theorizing Disagreement: Reconceiving the Relationship Between Law and Politics. California Law Review, v. 98, n. 4, p. 1319-1350, agosto 2010. Disponível em: <https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1079&context=californialawreview>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. A progressive perspective on freedom of speech. In: BALKIN, Jack M; SIEGEL, Reva B. The Constitution in 2020. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
POST, Robert C. Meiklejohn's Mistake: Individual Autonomy and the Reform of Public Discourse. University of Colorado Law Review, p. 1109-1137, 1993. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/203/>. Acesso em: 19 nov. 2018.
POST, Robert. et al. Citizens Divided. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press, 2014
POST, Robert. The Constitutional Concept of Public Discourse: Outrageous Opinion, Democratic Deliberation, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Harvard Law Review, v. 103, n. 3, jan. 1990. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/210/>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment. William and Mary Law Review, v. 32, n. 2, jan. 1991, p. 267-327. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1207&context=fss_papers>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. Managing Deliberation: The Quandary of Democratic Dialogue. Ethics, v. 103, jul. 1993, p. 654-678. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/204/>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. Recuperating First Amendment Doctrine. Stanford Law Review, v. 47, jul. 1995, p. 1249-1281. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/200/>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. Community and the First Amendment. Arizona State Law Journal, v. 29, jan.1997, p. 473-484. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/196/>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. Hate Speech. In: HARE, Ivan; WEINSTEN, James. Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford Scholarship Online, 2009. Disponível em: <http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199548781.001.0001/acprof-9780199548781>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
POST, Robert. Teorizing Disagreement: Reconceiving the Relationship between Law and Politics. California Law Review, v. 98, n. 4, p. 1319-1350, agosto 2010. Disponível em: <https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/4644/>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
PONTES, André Luiz Marcondes. Dworkin, Rawls e o método do equilíbrio reflexivo. In JÚNIOR, Ronaldo Porto Macedo. Teoria do Direito Contemporânea: autores e temas. Curitiba: Juruá, 2017.
SHIFFRIN, Seana Valentine. Methodology in free speech theory. Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 549-558, maio 2011.
SHIFFRIN, Seana V. A Thinker-Based Approach to Freedom of Speech. Constitutional Commentary, v. 27, n. 2, p. 283-307, 2011. Disponível em: <https://philpapers.org/rec/SHIATA>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
SHIFFRIN, Steven. Dissent, Democratic Participation, and First Amendment Methodology. Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 559-565, maio 2011. Disponível em: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/41261522?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
SCANLON, T. M. Why not base free speech on autonomy or democracy? Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 541-548, maio 2011a. Disponível em: <http://www.virginialawreview.org/volumes/content/why-not-base-free-speech-autonomy-or-democracy>. Acesso em: 19 nov. 2018.
SCANLON, T. M. Comment on Bakers Autonomy and Free Speech. Constitutional Commentary, v. 27, p. 319-325, out. 2011b. Disponível em: <https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2080&context=concomm>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
SCHAUER, Frederick. Must Speech Be Special? Northwestern University Law Review, v. 79, n. 5, 1983. Disponível em: <https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/878>. Acesso em: 07 Jul. 2018.
VOLOKH, Eugene. The trouble with public discourse as a limitation on free speech rights. Virginia Law Review. v. 97, n. 3, p. 567- 594, abril 2011. Disponível em: <http://virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/567.pdf>. Acesso em: 07 jan. 2019.
VOLOKH, Eugene. In defense of the Marketplace of Ideas / Search for Truth as a Theory of Free Speech protection. Virginia Law Review. v. 97, n. 3, p. 595-602, abril 2011. Disponível em: <http://virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/567.pdf>. Acesso em: 07 jan. 2019.
WEINSTEIN, James. Participatory democracy as the central value of American free speech doctrine. Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 491-514, 2011. Disponível em: <https://web.law.asu.edu/Portals/31/Weinstein_UVA_May_2011.pdf>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
WEINSTEIN, James. Participatory democracy as the central value of American free speech doctrine: a reply. Virginia Law Review, v. 97, n. 3, p. 633-680, 2011. Disponível em: <http://www.virginialawreview.org/sites/virginialawreview.org/files/633_0.pdf>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019
WEINSTEIN, James. Seana Shiffrin's Thinker-Based Theory of Free Speech: Elegant and Insightful, But Will It Work in Practice? Constitutional Commentary, v. 27, p. 385-397, out. 2011. Disponível em: <https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1467&context=concomm>. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2019.
WEINSTEIN, James. Hate Speech Bans, Democracy and Political Legitimacy. Constitutional Commentary, v. 32, n. 3 p. 527-583, outono 2017. Disponível em: <https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/191522>. Acesso em: 07 jan. 2019.
WEINSTEIN, James. Formal equality, formal autonomy, and political legitimacy: a Response to Ed Baker. West Virginia Law Review, v. 115, n. 3 p. 29-38, out 2012. Disponível em: <https://wvlawreview.wvu.edu/files/d/b3d759aa-d6ca-4931-9a78-8fe2b5ac86b6/weinstein.pdf>. Acesso em: 07 jan. 2019.
WILLIAMS, Susan H. Democracy Freedom of Speech and Feminist Theory. A Response to Post and Weinstein.Virginia Law Review, v. 97, p. 603-616, 2011. Disponível em: <https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/1322/>. Acesso em: 07 jan. 2019.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This obra is licensed under a Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional
