Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply
Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply, 97 Virginia Law Review 617 (2011)
In scholarship, one writes with the overt aspiration to persuade
but much more primitively with the urgent desire to be seriously
engaged in ongoing scholarly conversation. To be carefully read
and answered by seven commentators of this power and brilliance
is a treasure beyond all reasonable expectation. Of course, no one
exactly enjoys going under the surgeon's knife, but I am nevertheless
deeply grateful for these illuminating and helpful comments, as
well as for Professor James Weinstein's masterly efforts to organize
them. I cannot sufficiently express the loss we have all experienced
by Professor C. Edwin Baker's untimely death as this symposium
was in the process of creation.
I should say at the outset that Professor Vincent Blasi most generously
catches the fundamental aspiration of my own work, which
is to provide an account of First Amendment doctrine that gives
"considerable weight to ease of explanation and comprehension,
feasibility of implementation in an imperfect institutional environment."
Legal principles should "be made objective enough and authoritative
enough to control adaptive rule making." The inevitable
consequence is a certain degree of pragmatic simplification,
which is exemplified by my effort to develop a lexically fundamental
purpose for First Amendment doctrine.
Date of Authorship for this Version
Post, Robert, "Participatory Democracy as a Theory of Free Speech: A Reply" (2011). Faculty Scholarship Series. 4645.
This document is currently not available here.