Poli 276: Major Issues in
Political Thought (First Amendment)
Spring 2008
Mondays and Wednesdays, 4:30 – 5:45 pm
210 Gardner
Instructor: John Inazu
Office Hours: Wednesdays, 1:00 pm – 4:00 pm (or by
appointment)
(Office hours are held in the Union at one of the tables
near Alpine Bagels)
Email: inazu@email.unc.edu
Description
This course examines speech, expression, association, and
the free exercise of religion as those practices are
understood in the context of the First Amendment and
constitutional law. We will consider the nature and limits
of speech, the role of conscience and dissent, the notion
of the common good, the influence of technology on speech,
and the relationship between church and state. Because the
experiment of the First Amendment is a work in progress, we
will ask both critical and normative questions about the
constitutional framework that we encounter.
We will also make contemporary applications of the ideas
that we study. Should there be legal restrictions about
what you can write on an internet blog? Should a church be
able to deny employment to someone on the basis of sexual
orientation? Should charitable telemarketers be exempt from
inclusion on the do-not-call list? What mind-altering
substances may be used as a sacrament in religious worship?
When do national security interests trump free speech
rights? Do Facebook and Myspace create associations
warranting legal protection? These kinds of questions will
help us to explore the continued importance of the First
Amendment to our way of life.
Texts
Daniel Farber, The First Amendment (2nd Ed. 2003)
Ronald Collins and David Skover, The Death of Discourse
(2nd Ed. 2005)
Cases and articles listed on the syllabus are available on
Blackboard.
Assignments and Course Grade
Class Participation (first half of semester) 15%
Class Participation (second half of semester) 15%
Research Exercise 10%
First Paper (4-6 pages) 20%
Second Paper (8-12 pages) 30%
Final Exam 10%
Many of our readings will be judicial opinions. You may
find these difficult to follow or understand, and you may
have to read them multiple times before they start to make
sense. I will help you focus on the substance relevant to
this course instead of technical legal jargon that may
otherwise confuse or sidetrack you. But you will still need
to read slowly and carefully. The same will be true of some
of the philosophical writings that we read.
We will begin most of our classes with 15-20 minutes of
small group discussion in which you will engage with 4-5
other students about the readings. These groups will be
assigned, and they will change three times over the course
of the semester, giving you an opportunity to interact with
a number of other students. For each group, one student
will be assigned to moderate the discussion and one person
will be assigned to take notes.
The note taker will email to me within 48 hours after the
class a summary that includes: (1) an assessment of the
group leader on a scale of 1-5; (2) an assessment of each
participant on a scale of 1-5; (3) a brief comment on the
group dynamic; (4) comments or discussion leading
techniques that were especially helpful; and (5) comments
or discussion leading techniques that could use refinement.
Please send your notes in the body of your email (do not
attach a Word document) and copy yourself on the email so
that you have a record of it being sent. You will each have
four opportunities to moderate your small groups and four
opportunities to take notes (and submit summaries) over the
course of the semester. We will work out groups and a
schedule during the second week of the class. Because your
class participation will constitute a major part of your
course grade, it is particularly important that you come to
class on time and prepared to participate in these
discussions.
Each of you will submit a 1-2 page initial writing
assignment that will be due in our third class. This will
be largely autobiographical and will not require any
research. The purpose of this assignment is to let me learn
a little about you and to give me a sense of your writing
strengths and weaknesses. The assignment will not be
graded, but failure to turn it in on time will affect your
class participation grade.
Your other writing assignments are due in class on February
25 (first paper) and April 16 (second paper). I will
distribute details and grading guidelines about the writing
project later in the class.
The multiple choice final exam will take place on Friday,
May 2, at 4:00 pm.
Attendance
I expect you to attend all scheduled class meetings, but I
understand that conflicts inevitably arise. Accordingly,
you may miss up to three classes without penalty. If you
miss a class, I will email you after the class so that both
you and I have a record of your absence. Each absence after
the third—regardless of the reason—will result in a
half-step drop in your final course grade (e.g. an A-
becomes a B+, a B becomes a B-, and so on) unless you have
written permission to miss from the Dean of your school.
Because of the stiff penalty for missing more than three
classes, I suggest that you reserve your absences for
illness, nonnegotiable engagements away from campus, and
true emergencies. Missing class does not excuse you from
learning what happened that day, and all assignments must
be submitted on time unless you have cleared an alternate
due date with me in advance.
You will have an absence counted against you for every two
classes that you are more than five minutes late.
If you attend every class during the semester and arrive on
time, I will add a half-step to your second class
participation grade. Please note that for purposes of
fairness and consistency, this is an objective
determination and I am unable to grant exceptions for any
reason.
Communication
I will hold office hours from 1-4 on Wednesday afternoons
at one of the tables near Alpine Bagels inside the Student
Union. I am also available to meet with you at a different
time by appointment.
You can email me with questions or concerns. I will make
every effort to respond to your emails within one day of
your having sent them, with the exception of emails sent
over the weekend or holidays, which I will answer by the
following business day. If you plan ahead and stay on top
of the deadlines for your assignments, no questions about
your participation in this course or your assignments will
be time-sensitive enough to require an immediate response.
You should feel free to use office hours not only to
discuss our substantive readings but also to obtain help on
your writing, to ask questions about graduate school or law
school, or to talk about other academic or career concerns.
Grading Scale
A 92.5-100
A- 90-92.49
B+ 87.5-89.99
B 82.5-87.49
B- 80-82.49
C+ 77.5-79.99
C 72.5-77.49
C- 70-72.49
D+ 67.5-69.99
D 62.5-67.49
D- 60-62.49
F 59.99 and below
Schedule
INTRODUCTION
Wed, Jan 9: Introduction to the Course
· Text of the First Amendment
PART I: SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION
Mon, Jan 14: Introduction to Speech and
Association
· Farber, 1-26
· Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley
· Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
Wed, Jan 16: Oliver Wendell Holmes
INTRO ASSIGNMENT DUE
·Farber, 57-61
·Schenck v. United States
·Abrams v. United States
·Gitlow v. New York
·Holmes, “Natural Law”
·Grey, “Holmes, Pragmatism, and Democracy”
Mon, Jan 21: MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. DAY – NO
CLASS
Wed, Jan 23: Louis Brandeis
·Farber, 61-72; 75-77
·Whitney v. California
·Dennis v. United States
·Brandenburg v. Ohio
·Rice v. Paladin (4th Cir.)
·Rasul v. Bush, Brief of Amicus Curiae Fred
Korematsu
Mon, Jan 28: Contemporary Problems
RESEARCH EXERCISE DUE
·Collins and Skover, 3-45
·Student Paper, "A Different Way to Discuss the First
Amendment"
·Student Paper, "Political Discourse in Post 9/11 America"
Wed, Jan 30: Symbolic Speech
·Farber, 40-41
·Texas v. Johnson
·Barnes v. Glen Theatre
·Nimmer, “The Meaning of Symbolic Speech Under the First
Amendment”
Mon, Feb 4: Defamation
FIRST PAPER TOPIC DUE (by email)
·Farber, 79-95
·New York Times v. Sullivan
·Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
·Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
·Hilden, “The First Amendment and the Internet: Why
Traditional Legal Doctrines Apply Differently in
Cyberspace”
Wed, Feb 6: Obscenity and Pornography
·Farber, 127-136
·Reno v. ACLU
·Ashcroft v. ACLU I
·Ashcroft v. ACLU II
·Rosen, “The End of Obscenity”
Mon, Feb 11: Pornography Revisited
·Collins and Skover, 139-184
·Wolf, "The Porn Myth"
Wed, Feb 13: Fighting Words and Offensive
Speech
·Farber, 103-109
·Cantwell v. Connecticut
·Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
·Feiner v. New York
·Cohen v. California
Mon, Feb 18: Hate Speech
·Farber, 109-124
·RAV v. St. Paul
·Wisconsin v. Mitchell
·Virginia v. Black
·Collin v. Smith (7th Cir.)
Wed, Feb 20: Special Situations - Speech in Public
Schools
·Farber, 193-96
·Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School
Dist.
·Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser
·Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier
·Morse v. Frederick
·Student Paper, "The Schoolhouse Gate: Content
Discrimination in Public Schools"
Mon, Feb 25: Special Situations - Speech in the
Public University
FIRST PAPER DUE (6 Copies)
·Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
·Sherry, “Speaking of Virtue: A Republican Approach to
University Regulation of Hate Speech”
·Racial Harassment Policy, University of North Carolina
·Letter from Department of Education to Dr. James Moeser,
September 22, 2004
Wed, Feb 27: Writing Workshop
Mon, Mar 3: Commercial Speech
·Farber, 151-169
·Valentine v. Chrestensen
·Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Council
·Dickerson, “Facilitated Plagiarism”
Wed, Mar 5: Commercial Speech Revisited
RESUBMIT FIRST PAPER
(Optional)
·Collins and Skover, 69-119
SPRING BREAK (No class on Mar 10 or Mar
12)
Mon, Mar 17: Charitable Solicitation
·Martin v. Struthers
·Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment
·Inazu, “Revisiting the Court’s Charitable Solicitation
Jurisprudence”
·Young v. New York City Transit Authority (2d
Cir.)
Wed, Mar 19: Freedom of Assembly and
Association
·De Jonge v. Oregon
·NAACP v. Alabama
·Gallo v. Acuna (Cal. Sup. Ct.)
·Dunn, “Terrorism, the International Border, and the First
Amendment”
·United States v. Lindh, Government’s Opposition
to Lindh’s Freedom of
Association Challenge
Mon, Mar 24: Compelled Speech and
Association
·Farber, 41-42 and 233-37
·West Virginia v. Barnette
·Wooley v. Maynard
·Roberts v. Jaycees
·Boy Scouts v. Dale
Wed, Mar 26: Virtual Speech and
Association
·Noveck, “A Democracy of Groups”
·Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
·Terdiman, “Phony Kids, Virtual Sex”
·Student Paper, "The Application of Defamation Law in the
Virtual World"
PART II: FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
Mon, Mar 31: John Locke and Thomas
Jefferson
·Farber, 253-259
·Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration
·Jefferson, "Virginia Act for Establishing Religious
Freedom"
Wed, Apr 2: James Madison and Roger
Williams
·Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious
Assessments"
·Hall, “Roger Williams and the Foundations of Religious
Liberty”
·Witte, "The Essential Rights and Liberties of Religion in
the American Constitutional Experiment"
Mon, Apr 7: The Meaning of “Religion”
SECOND PAPER PEER EXCHANGE (Optional)
·Welsh v. United States
·Freeman, “The Misguided Search for the Constitutional
Definition of “Religion’”
·United States v. Kuch (D.D.C.)
·Church of the Chosen People v. United States
(D.Minn)
Wed, Apr 9: Early Free Exercise Cases
·Farber, 259-62
·Reynolds v. United States
·Prince v. Massachusetts
·Sherbert v. Verner
·Wisconsin v. Yoder
Mon, Apr 14: Recent Free Exercise Cases
·Farber, 262-73
·Employment Division, Department of Human Resources v.
Smith
·Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of
Hialeah
·City of Boerne v. Flores
Wed, Apr 16: Free Exercise, Speech, and
Association
SECOND PAPER DUE
·Axson-Flynn v. Johnson (10th Cir.)
·Bob Jones University v. United States
·Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools
v. Mergens
Mon, Apr 21: Religious Belief and Action
·Hauerwas, “The Kingship of Christ: Why Freedom of ‘Belief’
is not Enough”
·Yoder, “Response of an Amateur Historian and a Religious
Citizen”
CONCLUSION
Wed, Apr 23: Where Do We Go From Here?
·Readings to be assigned