000			04239cam a2200613 i 4500
001			u13441
003			SA-PMU
005			20210418123712.0
008			171027t20172017nyua b 001 0 eng d
010			_a 2016590840
040			_aYDXCP _beng _erda _cDLC _dBTCTA _dBDX _dCDX _dGUB _dGZL _dIGA _dOU9 _dFSP _dABG _dCOO _dCNCGM _dUCL _dTOH _dLSD _dDYJ _dUPM _dMBB _dCPP _dEMI _dOCLCF _dPAU _dYDX _dL2U _dCLU _dCHVBK _dYDXCP _dYBM _dTFF _dRCE _dGWL
020			_a9781479880287 _q(hardback : acid-free paper)
020			_a1479880280 _q(hardback : acid-free paper)
035			_a(OCoLC)946161367
042			_alccopycat
043			_an-us---
050	0	0	_aKF4772 _b.T87 2017
082	0	4	_a342.7308/53 _223
100	1		_aTushnet, Mark V., _d1945- _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aFree speech beyond words : _bthe surprising reach of the First Amendment / _cMark V. Tushnet, Alan K. Chen, and Joseph Blocher.
264		1	_aNew York : _bNew York University Press, _c[2017]
264		4	_c©2017
300			_avii, 261 pages : _billustrations ; _c24 cm
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_aunmediated _bn _2rdamedia
338			_avolume _bnc _2rdacarrier
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 237-253) and index.
505	0		_aInstrumental music and the First Amendment -- Art and the First Amendment -- Nonsense and the Freedom of Speech : what meaning means for the First Amendment -- Going further : additional problems and concluding thoughts.
520			_a"The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Jackson Pollock's paintings, Arnold Schöenberg's music, and Lewis Carroll's poem 'Jabberwocky' are 'unquestionably shielded' by the First Amendment. Nonrepresentational art, instrumental music, and nonsense: all receive constitutional coverage under an amendment protecting 'the freedom of speech, ' even though none involves what we typically think of as speech-- the use of words to convey meaning. As a legal matter, the Court's conclusion is clearly correct, but its premises are murky, and they raise difficult questions about the possibilities and limitations of law and expression. Nonrepresentational art, instrumental music, and nonsense do not employ language in any traditional sense, and sometimes do not even involve the transmission of articulable ideas. How, then, can they be treated as 'speech' for constitutional purposes? What does the difficulty of that question suggest for First Amendment law and theory? And can law resolve such inquiries without relying on aesthetics, ethics, and philosophy? Comprehensive and compelling, this book represents a sustained effort to account, constitutionally, for these modes of 'speech.' While it is firmly centered in debates about First Amendment issues, it addresses them in a novel way, using subject matter that is uniquely well suited to the task, and whose constitutional salience has been under-explored. Drawing on existing legal doctrine, aesthetics, and analytical philosophy, three celebrated law scholars show us how and why speech beyond words should be fundamental to our understanding of the First Amendment"-- _cPublisher's website.
610	1	0	_aUnited States. _tConstitution. _n1st Amendment.
650		0	_aFreedom of speech _vCross-cultural studies.
650		0	_aFreedom of speech _zUnited States.
650		7	_aLAW _xConstitutional. _2bisacsh
650		7	_aLAW _xIntellectual Property _xCopyright. _2bisacsh
630	0	7	_aConstitution (United States) _2fast _0(OCoLC)fst01356075
650		7	_aFreedom of speech. _2fast _0(OCoLC)fst00934044
651		7	_aUnited States. _2fast _0(OCoLC)fst01204155
650		7	_a86.52 civil rights. _0(NL-LeOCL)07760816X _2nbc
651		7	_aUnited States. _0(NL-LeOCL)078939836 _2gtt
651		4	_aUnited States.
655		7	_aCross-cultural studies. _2fast _0(OCoLC)fst01423769
700	1		_aChen, Alan, _eauthor.
700	1		_aBlocher, Joseph, _eauthor.
938			_aYBP Library Services _bYANK _n12932617
938			_aBaker and Taylor _bBTCP _nBK0018674443
938			_aBrodart _bBROD _n117026409
029	1		_aAU@ _b000059601161
029	1		_aCHBIS _b010862361
029	1		_aCHVBK _b479859655
942			_cBOOK
994			_aZ0 _bSUPMU
948			_hNO HOLDINGS IN SUPMU - 357 OTHER HOLDINGS
596			_a1 2
999			_c4281 _d4281