On communication

Citation metadata

Author: John Greenman
Date: May 2008
From: Michigan Law Review(Vol. 106, Issue 7)
Publisher: Michigan Law Review Association
Document Type: Article
Length: 20,340 words
Lexile Measure: 1470L

Document controls

Main content

Article Preview :

Everybody knows that communication is important, but nobody knows how to define it. The best scholars refer to it. Free-speech law protects it. But no one--no scholar or judge--has successfully captured it. Few have even tried.

This is the first article to define communication under the law. In it, I explain why some activities--music, abstract painting, and parading--are considered communicative under the First Amendment, while others--sex, drugs, and subliminal advertising--are not. I argue that the existing theories of communication, which hold that communicative behaviors are expressive or convey ideas, fail to explain what is going on in free-speech cases. Instead, communication hinges on the free will of the recipient. By this I mean that communication occurs when Person A conveys a thought to Person B, and Person B freely chooses whether to accept that thought. An act is communicative, in other words, if the important change that A wants to make in B's mind occurs only if B wills it to, as happens during an argument.

Reconceptualizing communication in this way--as behaviors meant to change minds through the free will of the listener--would solve deep and persistent First Amendment problems. It would explain which behaviors are communicative and therefore potentially covered by the First Amendment. Adopting the free-will theory would clarify the analysis in historically muddled areas such as the First Amendment treatment of nude dancing. But it would also shed light on the law governing new forms of behavior, such as publication of computer-programming code.

More broadly, the free-will theory of communication can point us in new directions. We are used to thinking of communication in ways that don't describe it, and these errors may keep us from recognizing new forms of communication as they develop. Applying the free-will theory of communication, I argue, will prepare us for technological changes that will make our old metaphors for communication obsolete.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. EXPLORATION: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO COMMUNICATE? A. The Coarse Definition of Communication Is Inadequate B. The Free-Will Theory Elaborated C. Analysis of Existing Theories 1. Communication Is Not Just the Conveyance of Ideas 2. Communication Is Not Just Behavior that Goes to the Mind 3. Communication Does Not Consist Only of Illocutionary Acts 4. Communication Does Not Consist Only of Behaviors that Convey Thoughts and Cause More Good than Harm II. APPLICATION: THE FREE-WILL THEORY OF COMMUNICATION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT A. The Free-Will Theory and First Amendment Values B. Description of Speech-Conduct Law C. The Free-Will Theory and Content-Neutrality Analysis D. Identifying Freely Willed Responses E. Application: Nude Dancing and Publishing Code 1. Nude Dancing 2. Code Cases CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION

Everybody knows that communication is important, but nobody knows how to define it. The best scholars refer to it. (1) Free-speech law protects it. (2) Smart people tell us that the Internet should be structured to promote it. (3) But no one--no scholar or judge--has successfully captured it. Few have even tried.

The following acts are communicative enough to be covered by the...

Get Full Access
Gale offers a variety of resources for education, lifelong learning, and academic research. Log in through your library to get access to full content and features!
Access through your library

Source Citation

Source Citation   

Gale Document Number: GALE|A179031825