Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support

Privacy, Publication, and the First Amendment: The Dangers of First Amendment Exceptionalism

Richard A. Epstein
Stanford Law Review
Vol. 52, No. 5, Symposium: Cyberspace and Privacy: A New Legal Paradigm? (May, 2000), pp. 1003-1047
Published by: Stanford Law Review
DOI: 10.2307/1229509
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1229509
Page Count: 45
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Cite this Item
If you need an accessible version of this item please contact JSTOR User Support
Privacy, Publication, and the First Amendment: The Dangers of First Amendment Exceptionalism
Preview not available

Abstract

The coordination of common law and constitutional norms are of pressing importance on matters of freedom of speech. In the Supreme Court and elsewhere, it is possible to discern two sharply inconsistent attitudes toward this question. One view holds that the First Amendment simply prevents any legislative backsliding from the common law rules that protect freedom of speech and of the press, much as they protect freedom of contract and freedom of action generally. On this view, the standard rule governing damages and injunctive relief apply to speech much as they do anywhere else. On the alternative view of what is termed First Amendment exceptionalism, the First Amendment protection is read more broadly to afford speech greater protection than the common law rules that insulate the publication of stolen information from judicial sanction by either damages or injunction. The article then argues that the common law approach affords a better balance between privacy and disclosure with respect to a wide range of confidential information, including the protection of trade secrets. In so doing, it criticizes the results reached in a number of important recent cases including Desnick v. American Broadcasting Co., Food Lion v. Capital Cities/ABC, and Ford Motor Co. v. Lane.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
1003
    1003
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1004
    1004
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1005
    1005
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1006
    1006
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1007
    1007
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1008
    1008
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1009
    1009
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1010
    1010
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1011
    1011
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1012
    1012
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1013
    1013
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1014
    1014
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1015
    1015
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1016
    1016
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1017
    1017
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1018
    1018
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1019
    1019
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1020
    1020
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1021
    1021
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1022
    1022
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1023
    1023
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1024
    1024
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1025
    1025
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1026
    1026
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1027
    1027
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1028
    1028
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1029
    1029
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1030
    1030
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1031
    1031
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1032
    1032
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1033
    1033
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1034
    1034
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1035
    1035
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1036
    1036
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1037
    1037
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1038
    1038
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1039
    1039
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1040
    1040
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1041
    1041
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1042
    1042
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1043
    1043
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1044
    1044
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1045
    1045
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1046
    1046
  • Thumbnail: Page 
1047
    1047