Está viendo la página Spain versión del sitio.
Le gustaría cambiar a su sitio local?
148 MIN TIEMPO DE LECTURA

FREE SPEECH, INCORPORATED

THE FIRST AMENDMENT has long been celebrated as the guardian of our democracy, a protector of the robust public discourse essential to self-determination. Today, however, the First Amendment is being shaped into something very different: a guardian of the interests of private companies that resist democratic regulation.

Many are familiar with Supreme Court cases such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) that use the First Amendment as a weapon against campaign finance restrictions. Others may also have heard of the 2018 decision Janus v. AFSCME, which struck a grave blow to public sector unions. In that case, a 5–4 majority flatly reversed more than 40 years of precedent, barring certain dues (so-called “fair-share fees”) on the grounds that they conflict with union members’ speech rights. What has largely escaped public notice, though, is that the Supreme Court has also begun reshaping the First Amendment into a tool to broadly undermine the regulatory state. Today, most Americans are clamoring for more robust regulation of markets. But whatcompanies cannot win through democratic politics, they are hoping to win from increasingly conservative courts, with First Amendment speech protections as an increasingly powerful weapon in their arsenal.

Lea el artículo completo y muchos más en este número de Boston Review
Opciones de compra
Si eres el dueño de la edición, Iniciar sesión para leer el artículo completo ahora.
Edición digital única Economics After Neoliberalism (Summer 2019)
 
€14,99 / issue
Este número y otros números atrasados no se incluyen en un nuevo suscripción. Las suscripciones incluyen el último número regular y los nuevos números publicados durante su suscripción. Boston Review

Este artículo es de...


View Issues
Boston Review
Economics After Neoliberalism (Summer 2019)
VER EN TIENDA

Otros artículos de este número


Boston Review
ECONOMICS AFTER NEOLIBERAL ISM
This publication was made possible by a generous grant from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
EDITOR’S NOTE
NEAR THE END of Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Milton
FORUM
ECONOMICS AFTER NEOLIBERAL ISM
We live in an age of astonishing inequality. Income
FORUM RESPONSES
ECONOMICS IS THE MATERIALITY OF MORAL CHOICE
FOR NON-ECONOMISTS on the left, “Economics After Neoliberalism”
ECONOMICS AFTER PARTISANSHIP
A DEFINING FEATURE of Naidu, Rodrik, and Zucman’s essay
IN DEFENSE OF NEOLIBERALISM
SINCE COMPLAINTS about the domination of market fundamentalism
MARKETS ARE POLITICAL
LIKE NAIDU, RODRIK, AND ZUCMAN, I celebrate the advantages
WHAT ABOUT DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?
AFTER NEARLY FOUR YEARS of working as chief economic
TRADE RESTRICTIONS WILL NOT ACHIEVE ETHICAL GLOBALIZATION
I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS on Dani Rodrik’s scheme to combat
INCLUSIVE PROSPERITY FOR GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAINS
STRONG, INDEPENDENT LABOR MOVEMENTS have always been
A TRANSDISCIPLINARY APPROACH
(Eric Beinhocker, W. Brian Arthur, Robert Axtell, Jenna Bednar, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, David Colander, Molly Crockett, J. Doyne Farmer, Ricardo Hausmann, Cars Hommes, Alan Kirman, Scott Page, and David Sloan Wilson)
“ILLIBERAL” ECONOMICS
“ECONOMICS AFTER NEOLIBERALISM” describes an economics
THE PERILS OF QUANTIFICATION
ECONOMICS STANDS DEEPLY COMMITTED to quantification
EMPIRICISM’S IMPLICIT BIAS
NAIDU, RODRIK, AND ZUCMAN are on the cutting edge of
ECONOMISTS SHOULD ENABLE DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES
THE RESPONSES IN THIS FORUM are too insightful to engage
ESSAYS
SELLING KEYNESIANISM
“LET’S BRING OUR EDITORIAL MICROSCOPE into focus on
EVERYDAY ECONOMISTS
HOW DO WE TALK about economics? Robert Manduca’s essay
WHO OWNS CORPORATIONS?
IN 1962 MILTON FRIEDMAN- the economist who, more than
THE FALSE PROMISE OF ENLIGHTENMENT
WE NEED METAPHORS to make sense of reality. But we
CONTRIBUTORS
Samuel Bowles is Arthur Spiegel Research Professor