string(0) ""
array(4) {
["txt"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_datas"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_thumbnail"]=>
string(0) ""
["block_media"]=>
string(0) ""
}
Injunction Junction
| Subtitle | Enjoining Free Speech After Madsen, Schenck, and Hill |
| Magazine Title | American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law |
| Volume | 12 |
| Magazine Year | 2004 |
| Magazine Number | 2 |
| Pages | p.273-307 |
| Note | lit. |
| Language | English/Engels |
| Description | The author examines how it is possible for a court to craft an injunction that protects listeners, protesters, and the Constitution itself. Part I assesses the pre-Madsen state of injunctive relief in cases involving free speech. Part II traces the rise through the lower courts of the two most important Supreme Court decisions on this point: Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. and Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York. Part III addresses the questions: are speech-restrictive injunctions necessarily content-based? Who can be enjoined? Are injunctions really deserving of higher scrutiny than statutes? Can the reviewing court raise government interests that the government has not pled, and what function can those state interests play in the analysis? What factual findings are necessary to support a speech-restrictive injunction? as analyzed in Madsen, Schenck, and a more recent case involving statutory restrictions on speech, Hill v. Colorado. |
| External Link | https://wcl.american.edu/journal/genderlaw/12/keast.pdf |
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/11653/art227960
