• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Communication Law and Policy >The Origins of the Press Clause
【24h】

The Origins of the Press Clause

机译：新闻名称的起源

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A part of me has always wanted to write something that started the academic equivalent of a rap battle. The idea that two scholars could provide a rich and meaningful discourse about an important topic by arguing with each other via academic writing sounds fascinating. The idea becomes even more attractive when the scholarship that is created helps move an entire field forward. This was certainly the case when David Anderson challenged eminent historian Leonard Levy's conclusions about the meaning and intent of the press clause in 1983. Anderson dug deeply into the history of the press clause, finding the Framers intended for it to have a meaning independent of the speech clause. Levy, not to be outdone, responded within the year by delving into historical sources to reinforce his far narrower understandings of the press clause and to refute Anderson's findings. Levy followed that effort with a revised version of his influential original work, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History, in 1985 with Emergence of a Free Press. Standing on the sidelines of this disagreement were other prominent legal historians and scholars. Anderson thanked Dwight Teeter and Lawrence Powe, his colleagues at the University of Texas, for their feedback on drafts of the article. Levy acknowledged Anderson and Teeter in his book in 1985. Legal historian David Rabban, a colleague of Anderson and Teeter, reviewed Levy's book that same year. It is not an understatement to suggest the Levy-Anderson disagreement benefitted the entire field. Certainly, Rabban and Powe, who went on to write influential books about similar concerns, were influenced by this disagreement. As was I.
机译：我的一部分一直想写一些开始的东西，开始了一个RAP战斗。通过学术写作声​​音令人着迷，两个学者可以通过互相争论来提供有关重要主题的丰富和有意义的话语的想法。当创建的奖学金有助于向前移动整个字段时，这个想法变得更具吸引力。当David Anderson挑战历史学家Leonard Levy关于1983年的新闻条款的意义和意图时，这肯定是这种情况。安德森深深地挖掘了新闻条款的历史，找到了旨在具有独立意义的含义语音条款。征收，不忽视，通过融入历史来源，在一年内回复，以加强他对新闻条款的较窄谅解和拒绝安德森的调查结果。征收随后采用了他有影响力的原创作品的修订版，抑制的遗产：言论自由，早期美国历史的自由，1985年出现了自由媒体。站在这种分歧的边线是其他着名的法律历史学家和学者。安德森感谢德克萨斯大学同事的德克萨斯州同事，为他们提供了关于文章草案的反馈意见。 1985年，Levy承认的安德森和跷跷板在1985年的书中。法律历史学家大卫拉巴，安德森和挡泥板的同事们回顾了李多的同一年的书。建议征收 - 安德森分歧是没有轻描淡写的，因为整个领域有益。当然，Rabban和Powe继续写下关于类似问题的有影响力的书，受到这种分歧的影响。和我一样。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号