|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
Record Nr. |
UNINA9910790120803321 |
|
|
Autore |
Krotoszynski Ronald J. <1967-> |
|
|
Titolo |
Reclaiming the petition clause [[electronic resource] ] : seditious libel, "offensive" protest, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances / / Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pubbl/distr/stampa |
|
|
New Haven, : Yale University Press, c2012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ISBN |
|
1-280-57142-X |
9786613601025 |
0-300-14990-5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Descrizione fisica |
|
1 online resource (256 p.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Disciplina |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soggetti |
|
Petition, Right of - United States |
Political rights - United States |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lingua di pubblicazione |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formato |
Materiale a stampa |
|
|
|
|
|
Livello bibliografico |
Monografia |
|
|
|
|
|
Note generali |
|
Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di bibliografia |
|
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nota di contenuto |
|
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- 1. The Growing Marginalization of Dissent and the New Seditious Libel -- 2. The Growing Loss of Public Space for Collective Expression of Dissent and the Failure of Contemporary First Amendment Doctrine to Address This Problematic Phenomenon -- 3. Security as a Cellophane Wrapper: Deconstructing the Government's Security Rationale for Marginalizing Public Dissent and Dissenters -- 4. The Right of Petition in Historical Perspective and Across Three Societies -- 5. The Jurisprudential Contours of the Petition Clause: An Examination of the Potential Doctrinal Shape and Scope of a Reclaimed Petition Clause -- 6. The Selma-to-Montgomery March as an Exemplar of Hybrid Petitioning -- 7. Conclusion -- Notes -- Index |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sommario/riassunto |
|
Since the 2004 presidential campaign, when the Bush presidential advance team prevented anyone who seemed unsympathetic to their candidate from attending his ostensibly public appearances, it has become commonplace for law enforcement officers and political event sponsors to classify ordinary expressions of dissent as security threats and to try to keep officeholders as far removed from possible protest as they can. Thus without formally limiting free speech the government |
|
|
|
|