Bomb Plans on the Internet: The Case for Constitutional Protection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15763/issn.2374-7781.2004.25.0.345-371Abstract
This article addresses the central constitutional questions surrounding the debate over regulating speech that includes educational designs for bomb making. The aim of the article is to provide an additional, and in many ways, alternative justification for broad constitutional protection based on the core principles of free speech itself, and on the Court’s historical treatment of differing subject matter. I argue that in addition to the more traditional First Amendment rules of over breadth and vagueness, it is also important to consider the judiciary’s evaluation of the content of speech itself when drawing conclusions about the constitutionality of legislation suppressing designs for the construction of violent material. Unlike unprotected speech, expression that includes designs for constructing explosives warrants constitutional protection because it belongs most closely to a category of speech-namely, scientific speech-that has traditionally been afforded protection.References
Aguilar, Rose, and Jim Davis. 1996. Terrorism Fight Spreads to Net. CNET News.com, July.
American Booksellers Assn. v. Hudnut. 1985. 7th Cir., 771 F.2d 323.
Amsterdam, Anthony. 1960. The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 109:67-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3310343
Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan. 1963. 372 U.S. 58.
Bernard, Chris G. 1999. The Child Online Protection Act: Can the COPA Cope with Constitutional Scrutiny in Light of Reno v. ACLU? Wayne Law Review 45:1665-1691.
Brandenburg v. Ohio. 1969. 395 U.S. 444.
Carey v. Populations Services International. 1977. 431 U.S. 678.
Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire. 1942. 315 U.S. 568.
Cole, April Bailey. 1999. Indecency on the Internet: Reno and the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Capital University Law Review 27:607-638.
Cox, David T. 1999. Litigating Child Pornography and Obscenity Cases in the Internet Age. Journal of Technology Law and Policy 4:1-149.
Doherty, Kelly. 1999. www.obscenity.com: An Analysis of Obscenity and Indecency Regulation on the Internet. Akron Law Review 32:259-300.
Dow Chemical Co. v. Allen. 1982. 7th Cir., 672 F.2d 1262.
Dun & Bradstreet v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.1985. 472 U.S. 749.
Emerson, Thomas. 1970. The System of Freedom of Expression. New York: Vintage Books.
Fallon, Richard H. 1991. Making Sense of Overbreadth. Yale Law Journal 100:853-908. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/796710
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. 1978. 438 U.S. 726.
Federalist 78. New York: Modern Library
Harber, David. 1994. Guerilla's Arsenal: Advanced Techniques for Making Explosives and Time-delay Bombs The Anarchist Arsenal. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group. 1995. 115 S. Ct. 2338.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. 1988. 485 U.S. 46
Konigsberg v. State Bar of California. 1961. 366 U.S. 36.
Lecker, Seymour. 1985. Improvised Explosives: How to Make Your Own. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.
Marts, Gary D. 2003. It's OK, She's a Pixel, Not a Pixie: The First Amendment Protects Virtual Child Pornography. Arkansas Law Review 25:717-752.
Meiklejohn, Alexander. 1948. Free Speech and Its Relation to Self Government. New York: Harper.
Miller v. California. 1973. 413 U.S. 15
Miller, Heather L. 1999. Strike Two: An Analysis of the Child Online Protection Act's Constitutional Failures. Federal Communications Law Journal 52:155-188.
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. 1982. 458 U.S. 886 at 913
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. 1964. 376 U.S. 254.
Note. 1969. The Chilling Effect in Constitutional Law. Columbia Law Review 69:808-842. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1121147
Noto v. United States. 1961. 367 U.S. 290.
Ota, Alan K. 1999. Regulating the Internet: Congress Asserts Domain. CQ Weekly 57:34-35, September.
Papish v. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri et al. 1973. 410 U.S. 667
Phillips, Scott, and Ryken Grattet. 2000. Judicial Rhetoric, Meaning-Making, and the Institutionalization of Hate Crime Law. Law and Society Review 34:567-606. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3115138
Progressive v. United States. 1979. 467 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Wis.).
Redish, Martin H. 1983. The Warren Court, the Burger Court, and the First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine. Northwestern Law Review 78:1031-1070.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union. 1997. 521 U.S. 844.
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.1986. 475 U.S. 41.
Ross, Catherine. 2000. Anything Goes: Examining the States Interest in Protecting Children from Controversial Speech. Vanderbilt Law Review 53:427-524.
Sargentich, Lewis. 1970. The First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine. Harvard Law Review 83:844-927. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1339842
Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC. 1989. 492 U.S. 115
Saunders, Kevin W. 1996. Violence as Obscenity: Limiting the Mediaís First Amendment Protection. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Schauer, Frederick. 1981. Categories and the First Amendment. Vanderbilt Law Review 34:265-307.
Schenck v. United States. 1919. 249 U.S. 47.
Seigel, Michael L. 1999. Hate Speech, Civil Rights and the Internet: The Jurisdictional and Human Rights Nightmare. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology 9:375-398.
Strauss, David. 1991. Persuasion, Autonomy, and Freedom of Expression. Columbia Law Review 91:334-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1122761
Sunstein, Cass R. 1993. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: Free Press.
Sweezy v. New Hampshire. 1957. 354 U.S. 234, 261-262.
Terminiello v. City of Chicago. 1949. 337 U.S. 1.
Tsesis, Alexander. 2000. The Empirical Shortcomings of First Amendment Jurisprudence: A Historical Perspective on the Power of Hate Speech. Santa Clara Law Review 40:729-786.
U.S. Department of Justice. 1997. Report on the Availability of Bomb-making Information. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
United States v. Roth. 1957. 354 U.S. 476.
Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. 1976. 425 U.S.
Wells, Robert. 1985. The Anarchist Handbook. Miami, FL: J. Flores Publications.
Witte, Gretchen. 1999. Internet Indecency and Impressionable Minds. Villanova Law Review 44:745-780.
Winters v. New York. 1948. 333 U.S. 507.
Young v. American Mini Theatres. 1976. 427 U.S. 50.
Zer-Ilan, Avital T. 1997. The First Amendment and Murder Manuals: Rice v. Paladin Enterprises, Inc. Yale Law Journal 106:2697-2702. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/797232
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with American Review of Politics agree to the following terms:
The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
Attribution: other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
Non-Commercial: the materials may not be used for commercial purposes;
Share Alike: If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a pre-publication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (see The Effect of Open Access). Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
The Author represents and warrants that:
the Work is the Author’s original work;
the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
the Work has not previously been published;
the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
