, 467 (2009). 5. Elsewhere, I have addressed the potential harms of government speech more generally. See Helen Norton, The Government’s Lies and the Constitution, 91 IND. L.J. 73, 89–107 (2015
, USA - VOLUME 2 2002 NUMBER 2 WHAT BUSH v. GORE MEANS FOR ELECTIONS IN THE 2 1ST CENTURY Helen Norton* So much has happened since the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore' that we may well find
. Rev. 159 (2012), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol54/iss1/4 - Article 4 HELEN NORTON* Under what circumstances should we understand government’s racist or otherwise hateful speech to violate ... ) (detailing the means and methods of government communication). Indeed, government must speak if it is to govern effectively. 2. For a brief history of the Court’s government speech doctrine, see Helen Norton
Imaginar y Thr Interests Helen Norton 0 0 Thi s Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It ... EXPRESSIVE INTERESTS Helen Norton† INTRODUCTION As the Supreme Court has recognized, the government must speak in a wide variety of ways if it is to function effectively.1 Government expression also serves
, 52 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 197, 2010 - THE SUPREME COURT’S POST-RACIAL TURN TOWARDS A ZERO-SUM UNDERSTANDING OF EQUALITY HELEN NORTON* The Supreme Court—along with the rest of the country—has long
excellent editorial support, and to Katharine Decker for outstanding research assistance , USA 1 Copyright © 2009 by Helen Norton This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts' treatment of public
Federal, state, and local civil rights laws regulate private decisionmaking about whom an employer may hire or fire, to whom a landlord may rent an apartment, or to whom a creditor may extend credit. In prohibiting discriminatory conduct, however, these laws also limit the speech of those making these decisions. In this Article, Professor Norton explores how we might think about...