A look at First Amendment coverage of music, non-representational art, and nonsense
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.
"synopsis" may belong to another edition of this title.
Mark V. Tushnet is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard University and the author of Why the Constitution Matters.
Alan K. Chen is William M. Beaney Memorial Research Chair & Professor of Law at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. He is the co-author of Public Interest Lawyering: A Contemporary Perspective.
Joseph Blocher is Professor of Law at Duke University School of Law.
"About this title" may belong to another edition of this title.
£ 13.02 shipping from U.S.A. to United Kingdom
Destination, rates & speeds£ 2.23 shipping from U.S.A. to United Kingdom
Destination, rates & speedsSeller: Kennys Bookstore, Olney, MD, U.S.A.
Condition: New. 2020. paperback. . . . . . Books ship from the US and Ireland. Seller Inventory # 9781479805518
Quantity: 2 available
Seller: Kennys Bookshop and Art Galleries Ltd., Galway, GY, Ireland
Condition: New. 2020. paperback. . . . . . Seller Inventory # 9781479805518
Quantity: 2 available
Seller: Powell's Bookstores Chicago, ABAA, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.
Condition: Used - Like New. Fine. Paperback. 2017. Originally published at $17.95. Seller Inventory # W122579
Quantity: 8 available
Seller: Powell's Bookstores Chicago, ABAA, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.
Condition: New. Fine. Paperback. 2017. Originally published at $17.95. Seller Inventory # W122579b
Quantity: 11 available
Seller: THE SAINT BOOKSTORE, Southport, United Kingdom
Paperback / softback. Condition: New. New copy - Usually dispatched within 4 working days. 408. Seller Inventory # B9781479805518
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, United Kingdom
Condition: New. Seller Inventory # 37655317-n
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: PBShop.store UK, Fairford, GLOS, United Kingdom
PAP. Condition: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. Established seller since 2000. Seller Inventory # FW-9781479805518
Quantity: 15 available
Seller: Rarewaves.com UK, London, United Kingdom
Paperback. Condition: New. A look at First Amendment coverage of music, non-representational art, and nonsense 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. Seller Inventory # LU-9781479805518
Quantity: 2 available
Seller: GreatBookPricesUK, Woodford Green, United Kingdom
Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition. Seller Inventory # 37655317
Quantity: Over 20 available
Seller: Kloof Booksellers & Scientia Verlag, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Condition: as new. New York : New York University Press, 2020. Paperback. 260 pp. - A look at First Amendment coverage of music, non-representational art, and nonsense The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Jackson Pollock's paintings, Arnold Schoeenberg'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. Condition : as new copy. ISBN 9781479805518. Keywords : RECHT, Seller Inventory # 296362
Quantity: 1 available