Executing the powers with which it is intrusted

Justifications, definitions and limitations of government speech

Edward L. Carter, Kevin R Kemper, Anesha Brown, James C. Phillips

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Federal, state and local governments have realized that an effective way to counter an undesirable private message is to swallow it up within the government's own speech. So far, the Supreme Court of the United States has acquiesced, including its February 2009 opinion in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. This article explores the roots, definition and limits of government speech through a close examination of not only Summum but two other recent Supreme Court opinions granting the government a right to communicate even when others contend that the speech conflicts with their own messages. The article concludes that the government speech doctrine needs further explanation with regard to its justification and contours. The rational basis test and political process may not be sufficient to contain government speech within desirable bounds; instead, government speech should be subjected to judicial scrutiny to ensure it remains germane and proportional.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)453-478
Number of pages26
JournalCommunication Law and Policy
Volume14
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Fingerprint

Supreme Court
federal state
doctrine
examination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Communication

Cite this

Executing the powers with which it is intrusted : Justifications, definitions and limitations of government speech. / Carter, Edward L.; Kemper, Kevin R; Brown, Anesha; Phillips, James C.

In: Communication Law and Policy, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2009, p. 453-478.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{19c6a0a9fdeb44e39177658953117bde,
title = "Executing the powers with which it is intrusted: Justifications, definitions and limitations of government speech",
abstract = "Federal, state and local governments have realized that an effective way to counter an undesirable private message is to swallow it up within the government's own speech. So far, the Supreme Court of the United States has acquiesced, including its February 2009 opinion in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. This article explores the roots, definition and limits of government speech through a close examination of not only Summum but two other recent Supreme Court opinions granting the government a right to communicate even when others contend that the speech conflicts with their own messages. The article concludes that the government speech doctrine needs further explanation with regard to its justification and contours. The rational basis test and political process may not be sufficient to contain government speech within desirable bounds; instead, government speech should be subjected to judicial scrutiny to ensure it remains germane and proportional.",
author = "Carter, {Edward L.} and Kemper, {Kevin R} and Anesha Brown and Phillips, {James C.}",
year = "2009",
doi = "10.1080/10811680903238019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "453--478",
journal = "Communication Law and Policy",
issn = "1081-1680",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Executing the powers with which it is intrusted

T2 - Justifications, definitions and limitations of government speech

AU - Carter, Edward L.

AU - Kemper, Kevin R

AU - Brown, Anesha

AU - Phillips, James C.

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - Federal, state and local governments have realized that an effective way to counter an undesirable private message is to swallow it up within the government's own speech. So far, the Supreme Court of the United States has acquiesced, including its February 2009 opinion in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. This article explores the roots, definition and limits of government speech through a close examination of not only Summum but two other recent Supreme Court opinions granting the government a right to communicate even when others contend that the speech conflicts with their own messages. The article concludes that the government speech doctrine needs further explanation with regard to its justification and contours. The rational basis test and political process may not be sufficient to contain government speech within desirable bounds; instead, government speech should be subjected to judicial scrutiny to ensure it remains germane and proportional.

AB - Federal, state and local governments have realized that an effective way to counter an undesirable private message is to swallow it up within the government's own speech. So far, the Supreme Court of the United States has acquiesced, including its February 2009 opinion in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. This article explores the roots, definition and limits of government speech through a close examination of not only Summum but two other recent Supreme Court opinions granting the government a right to communicate even when others contend that the speech conflicts with their own messages. The article concludes that the government speech doctrine needs further explanation with regard to its justification and contours. The rational basis test and political process may not be sufficient to contain government speech within desirable bounds; instead, government speech should be subjected to judicial scrutiny to ensure it remains germane and proportional.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70350166767&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70350166767&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10811680903238019

DO - 10.1080/10811680903238019

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 453

EP - 478

JO - Communication Law and Policy

JF - Communication Law and Policy

SN - 1081-1680

IS - 4

ER -