Abstract
This comment discusses four of Justice Stevens's opinions that analyze first amendment issues. Two dissenting opinions in Splawn v. California and Smith v. United States deal expressly with obscenity, and reject the Court's present method of analysis. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. and Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation both develop a balancing approach to ascertain the constitutionality of government regulation of nonobscene offensive speech. The comment concludes that Justice Stevens correctly identifies the factors necessary to insure proper Court protection of speech interests.
Recommended Citation
Richard G. Birinyi, A Case for Judicial Balancing: Justice Stevens and the First Amendment, 2 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 137 (1978).
