In this Allen Chair Symposium issue of the University of Richmond Law Review, three outstanding scholars have written provocative pieces on the First Amendment. Professor John Nowak engages in an exercise of constitutional futurism, "'remembering the future" to propose a number of relatively radical alterations of First Amendment doctrine to achieve what he argues should be the appropriate balance between freedom of speech and fair trials in "cyber world." Professor Paul Carrington, arguing that a communitarian right of citizens to self-government is the principal that ought to animate our politics and law, has launched a broadside indictment against contemporary First Amendment doctrine, attacking an eclectic range of current doctrines, including obscenity, offensive speech, separation of church and state, symbolic speech, forced speech, freedom of association, commercial advertising, libel, and campaign finance. Professor C. Thomas Dienes, critiquing decisions that have approved of limitations on the speech of lawyers and other participants in trials, offers a spirited argument that such restraints are in tension
Rodney A. Smolla,
What Passes for Policy and Proof in First Amendment Litigation?,
U. Rich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol34/iss4/3