Beyond Original Intent: Exploring a Broader Meaning of Freedom of Expression

NOTES

• Much of this research focuses on attempts to prove the repressionist theories of Leonard W. Levy, presented in his Emergence of a Free Press (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), or to disprove them, as in David A. Anderson, “The Origins of the Press Clause,” UCLA Law Review 30 (1983): 455–541.
   Google Scholar
• A standard history of academic freedom in the United States is Richard Hofstadter with Walter P. Metzger, The Development of Academic Freedom in the United States (New York: Columbia University Press, 1955). The volume has its roots in a period of great concern for academic freedom, the McCarthy era.
   Google Scholar
• For a review of the entire campaign, see David J. Piver, Purity Crusade: Sexual Morality and Social Control, 1868–1900 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1973).
   Google Scholar
• The leading work on Anthony Comstock is Heywood Broun and Margaret Leech, Anthony Comstock: Roundsman of the Lord (New York, Albert & Charles Boni, 1927). Primarily biographical in nature, it does look at the free-expression issue, particularly in connection with the prosecution of the freethinkers.
   Google Scholar
• The leading work on Schroeder is David Brudnoy, “Theodore Schroeder and The Suppressers of Vice,” The Civil Liberties Review, June-July 1976, pp. 48–56. The article is apparently based on Brudnoy's dissertation. There is no full-scale biography of Schroeder, who presents his views quite eloquently in numerous books, including a collection of his articles on obscenity, “Obscene” Literature and Constitutional Law: A Forensic Defense of Freedom of the Press (New York: Privately Printed, 1911).
   Google Scholar
• The Free Speech League is mentioned in several articles, one of which is David M. Rabban, “The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years,” The Yale Law Review 90 (1981): 514–95. In that article, Rabban promises a forthcoming article on the Free Speech League, which has yet to appear.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• For a history of the first efforts at self-regulation in the film industry, see Charles Matthew Feldman, The National Board of Censorship (Review) of Motion Pictures, 1909–1922 (New York: Arno Press, 1977).
   Google Scholar
• The classic work in the field is William Preston Jr., Aliens and Dissenters: Federal Suppression of Radicals, 1903–1933 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963).
   Google Scholar
• 194 U.S. 279 (1904).
   Google Scholar
• The Turner case is one of those discussed in Leon Whipple, The Story of Civil Liberty in the United States (New York: Vanguard Press for the American Civil Liberties Union, 1927). Whipple's book generally provides much material on free-expression problems of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
   Google Scholar
• Dissent during the war has been discussed in political terms in Robert L. Beisner, Twelve Against Empire: The Anti-Imperialists, 1898–1900 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968). A brief general excursion into dissent in the Spanish-American War is found in Samuel Eliot Morison, Frederick Merk and Frank Freidel, Dissent in Three American Wars (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970). Freidel wrote the essay on the Spanish-American War.
   Google Scholar
• The standard history of the event is Henry David, The History of the Haymarket Affair, 2nd ed. (New York: Russell and Russell, 1958). John Lofton has discussed the Haymarket affair in terms of newspaper coverage of the event in his The Press as Guardian of the First Amendment (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1980), pp. 116–45.
   Google Scholar
• See, e.g., Joseph G. Rayback, A History of American Labor (New York: Macmillan, 1959).
   Google Scholar
• For an introduction to the free-speech encounters of the IWW, see Whipple and Preston.
   Google Scholar
• Rabban; Alexis J. Johnson, “The Formative Period of First Amendment,” The American Journal of Legal History 24 (1980): 56-75; Margaret A. Blanchard, “Filling in the Void: Speech and Press in State Courts Prior to Gitlow,” in The First Amendment Reconsidered, edited by Bill F. Chamberlin and Charlene J. Brown (New York: Longman, 1982), pp. 14–59; and Margaret A. Blanchard, “The Institutional Press and Its First Amendment Privileges,” Supreme Court Review 1978, pp. 252–59.
   Google Scholar
• The publication of Norman L. Rosenberg, Protecting the Best Men: An Interpretive History of the Law of Libel (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986), is a welcome addition to the literature in the field. It contains excellent material covering the developments in libel law during these years.
   Google Scholar
• Don R. Pember, Privacy and the Press (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1972), touches briefly on the history of the development of privacy.
   Google Scholar
• See, for example, David Gordon, “The 1896 Maryland Shield Law: The American Roots of Evidentiary Privilege for Newsmen,” Journalism Monographs 22 (1972).
   Google Scholar
• For a brief introduction to Roosevelt's problems with coverage of the Panama Canal transactions, see Lofton, pp. 146–68.
   Google Scholar