Noah Womack

Professor McGriff

ENC 1102

6 August 2018

Annotated Bibliography

Abrams v. United States. 250 US 616. Supreme Court of the US, 1919. Justia,

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/250/616/. Accessed 5 August 2018.

In this court case, Jacob Abrams is brought to trial under the sedition act due to spreading

flyers of an anti-American sentiment. The majority rule in this case is that Abrams’ flyers

fuel “sedition and disorder,” and are therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. writes a dissent which argues that Abrams’ flyers do

not present a clear and present danger, and therefore his speech should be permissible as

even if his ideas are a problem, they are not going to be easily spread, and will fail in the

marketplace.

The primary interest in this case is due to Holmes’ dissent, which while being based in

the “clear and present danger test,” still offers a concise defense of why ideas and

opinions like Abrams’ should not be silenced by the law, so it is therefore still a

reasonable, and valuable source.

My primary intent in using this source is giving some minor background on the origin of

the “marketplace of ideas,” and how the metaphor is used, and Holmes’ phrasing of it is

extremely easy to get across to most people. I won’t actually need the surrounding

context of the case, as Holmes’ statements about ideas succeeding in a marketplace have

evolved beyond their original context.

Brummette, John, et al. “Read All About it: The Politicization of “Fake News” on Twitter.”

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, vol. 95, no. 2, May 2018, pp. 497-517.

Sage Journals, https://doi-org.db23.linccweb.org/10.1177%2F1077699018769906.

Accessed 21 July 2018.

The term “fake news” is twisted by insular political groups in order to disparage members

of opposing groups. Logical discussion is lost in exchange for petty usage of the term.

The authors aggregated and studied the contextual usage of the term “fake news” on

social media. This article seems to be reputable on that front.

I might be able to use this, though it is a bit narrow. The focus on the term “fake news” is

actually less important to me than the idea that this article can be used as a more concrete

bit of evidence for a divide between political groups, and general insularity in their

political discussion.

Goldberg, Michelle. "We Have a Crisis of Democracy, Not Manners." New York Times, 26 June

2018, p. A27(L). Academic OneFile,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A544354633/AONE?u=lincclin_sjrcc&sid=AONE&

xid=88d0e1f4. Accessed 31 July 2018.

Goldberg justifies the actions of several groups of individuals who have gotten some of

those working in the Trump administration removed from restaurants, as well as some

general harassment. The violent backlash is justified due to the administration being

dangerous and racist, and Trump’s presidency being clearly illegitimate.

Goldberg makes several claims without evidence, and is abundantly clear with where her

biases are. This article functions as an opinion piece, and should only be cited in that

context.
 I will be using this article, mostly as an example of what happens when out-group

hostility is viewed as more important than maintaining a reasonable political discourse.

Hundley, Annie C. “Fake News and the First Amendment: How False Political Speech Kills the

Marketplace of Ideas.” Tulane Law Review, vol. 92, no. 2, Dec. 2017, pp. 497-518.

EBSCOhost,

db23.linccweb.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9

h&AN=127234558&site=ehost-live. Accessed 21 July 2018.

There exist speech that is not covered under the first amendment, and speech classifiable

as false political speech should have restrictions. The concept of a free marketplace of

ideas doesn’t function well enough to filter out false political speech, so such speech

must be defeated with regulation.

Hundley uses legal arguments to push her claims, defining a context in which the free

marketplace of ideas is unnecessary. It seems somewhat useful, though the most useful

portions might be those referencing history, and those directly arguing against the

marketplace of ideas.

I’m not sure about this article. Unfortunately, it was not what I expected going in, but

there are still some portions I might be able to reference. As well, I may consider

switching to a topic closer to this, in the vein of “should there be regulations and

limitations on the press?” if I end up finding more research supporting an argument on

that topic than this one.

Lepoutre, Maxime. “Hate Speech in Public Discourse: A Pessimistic Defense of Counterspeech.”

Social Theory & Practice, vol. 43, no. 4, Oct. 2017, pp. 851-883. EBSCOhost,

https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201711125. Accessed 24 July 2018.

 Lepoutre pessimistically supports counterspeech as a solution to bad ideas, as banning or

limiting certain ideas as “hate speech” would riskily extend the power of a government

body too far to take lightly.

Lepoutre extends her biases openly, but argues against them. This article seems

trustworthy enough due to that, as it isn’t one person blindly going with their biases.

If I were covering the topic of “should government put limits on free speech?” I would

probably more readily use this article, but as I’m not, this will probably end up useless.

Upon re-reading the article, it actually might be able to serve some point, since my own

essay has begun to veer slightly towards the governmental control angle.

Lin, Mei-Chen, et al. “The Role of Political Identity and Media Selection on Perception of

Hostile Media Bias During the 2012 Presidential Campaign.” Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, vol 60, no. 3, Sep. 2016 pp. 425-447. Academic Search Complete, doi:

10.1080/08838151.2016.1203316. Accessed 11 July 2018.

The prevalence of media bias perceived by an individual changes depending on certain

factors, including how the individual’s own group is perceived by the public, how they

perceive their own group, their political leanings, and how politically cynical they are.

Perception of media bias increases during the presidential campaign season due to what is

likely an internal desire to protect the identity of the group, and potentially see examples

of bias against their group where there is none.

This source is highly useful due to it being the results of a study. The data in the article

can easily help illustrate the idea that the threat of media bias is mostly self-invented,

which is contrary to the other articles we have gathered.

 This article is useful for my research, due to it containing concrete data that would help in

illustrating certain points.

Masullo Chen, Gina. “Online Political Discourse: Exploring Differences in Effects of Civil and

Uncivil Disagreement in News Website Comments.” Journal of Broadcasting &

Electronic Media, vol. 61, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 108-125. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/08838151.2016.1273922. Accessed 24 July 2018.

Both Civil and Uncivil disagreement may lead to hostility and negative emotions. This

suggests that individuals may be annoyed no matter the civility of the resulting discourse.

Incivility is more likely to foster further incivility, but it is not conducive of more

disagreement in general.

This article offers data on how people respond to those who disagree with them online. It

seemingly presents no apparent biases, and appears to be a trustworthy source.

Unfortunately, this article is likely useless for my purposes. It’s only research covering

how people respond to interaction, offering no substance that I can rely upon.

Napoli, Philip M. “What If More Speech Is No Longer the Solution? First Amendment Theory

Meets Fake News and the Filter Bubble.” Federal Communications Law Journal, vol. 70,

no. 1, Apr. 2018, pp. 57-103. Academic OneFile,

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A539774158/AONE?u=lincclin_sjrcc&sid=AONE&

xid=b735a63f. Accessed 21 July 2018.

Napoli covers the idea that in the age of the internet and mass media, the first amendment

needs to be reconsidered and recontextualized, as it was written in an age of mostly word-

of-mouth news proliferation. In the end, some limitation to the idea of counterspeech

should be considered.
 Napoli offers an excellent perspective on the topic of the free marketplace of ideas in the

context of an unruly news media and the 2016 presidential election. This article is most

definitely useful.

I will certainly be using this article as a counterpoint to my own perspective, as it offers

opinions on the same subject in the same time frame.

Oc, Burak, et al. “When the tables are turned: The effects of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election

on in-group favoritism and out-group hostility.” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 5, May 2018, pp.

1-16. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197848. Accessed 24 July 2018.

The ego-shock of the 2016 presidential election results shifted how both Democrats and

Republicans judged and allocated resources to in-group and out-group members. Before

the results, Democrats displayed little out-group hostility and in-group favoritism, whilst

Republicans, assuming a loss on the part of Donald Trump, were relatively insular and

hostile to non-Republicans. After Trump’s unlikely victory, this pattern of behavior

switched, Democrats experiencing an negative ego-shock, and Republicans experiencing

a positive ego-shock.

This paper examines in-group bias and out-group hostility in relation to the 2016 election

results, offering an explanation to the current state of the two major political parties.

This data might be mildly useful to me, but only just so. I can relate this information to

another source, “The Role of Political Identity and Media Selection on Perception of

Hostile Media Bias During the 2012 Presidential Campaign,” as an examination of how

individuals’ ability to consider outside opinions might be easily affected by outside

factors. Though, I may throw out that line of reasoning as extraneous.

Piety, Tamara R., Market Failure in the Marketplace of Ideas: Commercial Speech and the

Problem that Won't Go Away. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, vol. 41, 2008. SSRN,

https://ssrn.com/abstract=1100275. Accessed 31 July 2018.

Many are extending the marketplace of ideas metaphor into the commercial realm. Piety

examines this line of thinking, and ultimately concludes that commercial speech should

not have further protections, due to clear evidence of market failure.

Piety’s fully formed arguments make this a useful source. Though the article focuses on

commercial speech, it is entirely possible to take the arguments present to other arenas of

speech.

This article is useful for me in particular for the factors of market failure that Piety brings

up, which I will be using to set up one of my major points.

Seaman, Julie A. “WINNING ARGUMENTS.” Law & Psychology Review, vol. 41, 2016/2017,

pp. 1-51. EBSCOhost,

db23.linccweb.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9

h&AN=124410827&site=ehost-live. Accessed 21 July 2018.

Humans reason not to find the truth, but to win arguments. With this in mind, how the

supreme court rationalizes the first amendment and the free marketplace of ideas should

change to better fit the idea that humans seek victory in arguments over the truth.

This article seems useful, offering the idea that the best context for a free marketplace of

ideas is one where a diverse set of ideas and perspectives are present, in so that the

formation of a insular environment is prevented.

 I will probably end up using some amount of information from this source. As I continue

looking at other sources, my mind actually drifts back to this one, as bits of it seem more

relevant the farther I go into gathering pieces.

Sorial, Sarah. “Free Speech, Autonomy, and the Marketplace of Ideas.” The Journal of Value

Inquiry, vol. 44, no. 2, Jan. 2010, pp. 167-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-010-9200-

x. Accessed 21 July 2018

Sorial examines the “free marketplace of ideas” and autonomy, and how the individual is

ineffective in protecting themselves from bad ideas. Sorial examines these concepts more

closely in arguments against the idea of sedition laws, and ultimately argues that we

should consider concepts like the “free marketplace of ideas” as failures and look for

options that actually stop dangerous ideas.

Sorial examines relevant concepts in a particular context, that of sedition laws, and comes

to a clear conclusion. The traditional conceptualization of a free marketplace of ideas is

an outdated failure in Sorial’s eyes.

I might use some of this, but it’s seemingly the least useful of my sources so far. Its focus

on sedition laws makes it closer to an argument on the subject of “should there be limits

on freedom of speech” rather than my current topic.

Yoonhye, Kim. “BETWEEN FACTS AND NORMS: JOURNALISM AND GLOBAL

ETHICS.” Journal of International Affairs, vol. 70, no. 2, 2017, pp. 163-174.

EBSCOhost,

db23.linccweb.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9

h&AN=123889226&site=ehost-live. Accessed 24 July 2018.

The facts and norms of a situation should be held less important than judging a situation

from a diverse set of perspectives. A cosmopolitan approach to journalism would be the

most effective.

This article argues against judging situations based on objective judging of the situation

at hand, and for judging through moral lenses.

Unfortunately, the content in this article is of no use to me. While at first it seemed

relevant, at least based on the title, the subject matter ended being too far divorced from

my own.