conversations.from: human
conversations.value: What could be a title for a book about Amendment, Soul, American with the genre: Politics & Social Sciences, Politics & Government?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: A title for this book could be 'The Soul of the First Amendment'
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Do you know the first two paragraphs for this book? End with the sentence '"'.
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: The Soul of the First Amendment
  The people of St. Louis and San Francisco, who have been enjoying the full benefits of just such a system of government as the [home rule] amendment provides, will be astonished to learn that they no longer live in a republic—for the Colorado supreme court holds that such a government is so unrepublican that it cannot be tolerated in Colorado... What next? If somebody will let us know what next the utility corporations of Denver and the political machine they control will demand, the question will be answered.
  Patterson was held in contempt by the Colorado Supreme Court, the very body he had criticized. From his perspective, as University of Texas Law professor Lucas A. Powe Jr. observed, "no forum could have been worse than the one he got. Whether a Denver jury would have acquitted him may be an open question; that he would have had a chance of acquittal is not."
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Do you know five more paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: JUSTICE SCALIA: What happened to the overbreadth doctrine? I mean, I thought our doctrine in the [First] Amendment is if you write it too broadly, we are not going to pare it back to the point where it's constitutional. If it's overbroad, it's invalid. What has happened to that[?]
  GENERAL KAGAN: I think a—a pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is a pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that 441b only applies to video and not to print.
  Both of these rulings raised similar issues to those raised by critics of the Roberts Court's campaign finance rulings. In both, critics of press power and behavior relied on what they urged were democratic principles to overcome the ability of the press to determine for itself what to print and what not.
  Why, the proponents of the Alabama legislation asked, at a time when most people received their news from a single newspaper in a community in which there was no other, was it not fairer and more likely to lead to more thoughtful decisions by voters to bar, on election day only, advocacy as to how to vote? Why, in fact, was it not more democratic to do so rather than running the risk that the newspaper would have too great an impact on the election by offering, on election day, "last minute political charges without opportunity to answer"?
  And why, the proponents in Florida of its right to reply statute asked, was it not fairer and more democratic to permit someone accused by a newspaper of some sort of misconduct to reply to the charges? Why was the Florida Supreme Court wrong in concluding that since the statute was "designed to add to the flow of information and ideas" and simply required "in the interest of full and fair discussion, additional information," it was consistent with the First Amendment?
conversations.from: human
conversations.value: Do you know the last four paragraphs?
conversations.from: assistant
conversations.value: Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel and Special Counsel to the Department of Defense, has offered a similar mixed verdict. Snowden, Goldsmith concluded, "compromised scores of surveillance techniques, representing billions of dollars of investments over many years" and made it more difficult for the United States to monitor communications and access data. At the same time, Goldsmith credits Snowden for forcing the intelligence community "out of its suboptimal and unsustainable obsession with secrecy" and for raising issues that ultimately led to the adoption by Congress of the USA Freedom Act, which imposed limits on the bulk telephone metadata program of the NSA.
  Given such vacillating reactions to Snowden's conduct, it simply may be too early for the American public to pass any ultimate judgment on that conduct. But it is not too soon to conclude that a number of his revelations about American intelligence gathering abroad are worthy of condemnation and not the sometimes limitless praise he has often received, particularly in Europe.
  The European Parliament, the European Union's directly elected parliamentary institution, adopted a nonbinding resolution on October 29, 2015, calling upon the twenty-eight EU member states to "drop any criminal charges against Edward Snowden, grant him protection and consequently prevent extradition or rendition by third parties, in recognition of his status as whistleblower and international human rights defender."
  In the Pentagon Papers case, as in most in which the Supreme Court has addressed the First Amendment, it read it broadly, expansively, in a markedly speech-protective manner. The American press has been held to have virtually carte blanche freedom to decide what to print. But that leaves the press with another decision: What to print? The First Amendment provides no answer to this question. It never does.