The Core of Freedom of Expression: Regulations of Conduct for the Purpose of Affecting Messages Received
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having shown in Chapter Two, primarily through an excursion into American First Amendment jurisprudence and its Track Two component, but with some glances at the analogous jurisprudence of Canada and Australia, that principles (1), (2), (3), and (4) – all of which focus on the effects of regulations on messages intended and received – are untenable for delimiting the scope of freedom of expression, I concluded that principle (5), which has as its focus the regulator's purpose in regulating conduct, defines that scope. Principle (5) includes within freedom of expression all conduct that is restricted for the purpose of affecting the messages that audiences receive. It is immaterial under principle (5) whether the conduct is the conventional method of expressing ideas – written or oral language – whether it is intended to express ideas by those engaging in it, or whether most people would receive the message in question from observing or hearing the conduct. All that matters is why the conduct is regulated. If it is regulated because of a message that the regulator wishes to suppress, alter, or otherwise affect, freedom of expression is implicated. Thus, if government forbids people from climbing Half Dome in Yosemite National Park – not because of the danger that they might be injured, not because of the harm they might cause the environment, but because government fears that some of them are receiving spiritual messages from the experience that the government wishes them not to receive – freedom of expression is in issue despite the absence of a speaker, an intent to speak, conventional symbols, and perhaps even the meaning most would attach to the experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".