To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Generalizations about ‘car culture’ in the United States, and about American's ‘love affair with the automobile’, have concealed persistent values and practices among millions of Americans that do not suit such stereotypes. Car culture and the car's attractions are not denied. American society, however, is a complex of numerous subcultures, including many that resented and resisted the automobile's growing priority during the twentieth century. Such groups’ resistance to automobile domination has been neglected. Persistent advocacy for pedestrians’ interests is illustrated through numerous examples from the 1920s to the 1960s, the decades when ‘car culture’ rose to its apogee.
Walking is a neglected topic in the history of transport and mobility in cities. The four articles in this special section demonstrate the importance of travel on foot in nineteenth- and twentieth-century cities in four different countries, and reveal the ways in which pedestrian mobility has persisted despite the development of a car-dominated society. Together they provide important new evidence on a neglected topic and hopefully pave the way for further research on this theme.
Dyslexia, or difficulty in learning to read that is not caused by a sensory deficit or lack of effort or education, affects readers of all languages (Caravolas,2005). Based on this definition, dyslexia cannot be diagnosed until children have demonstrated trouble with reading acquisition. However, it would be ideal to identify which children will go on develop reading problems before they struggle or fail to learn to read. Children who are identified early and who receive early intervention are likely to have better reading outcomes (Bowyer-Crane et al., 2008; Torgesen, 2004; Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004; Vellutino, Scanlon, & Tanzman, 1998) and may suffer fewer of the negative consequences associated with poor reading. Further, an understanding of which children are at greatest risk for reading difficulties would allow educators and clinicians to allocate limited intervention resources to students who need them most. Extensive behavioral research has sought to answer this question and yet models predicting reading are rarely employed in practice.
To explore food perceptions among grandparents and understand the influence of these perceptions on food choice for the younger generations in their family.
Qualitative methodology, thematic analysis of the transcripts from fourteen focus groups.
Grandparents in the southern region of the United States.
Participants were fifty-eight Black, Hispanic, and White grandparents, predominantly women (72%), ranging in age from 44–86 years (mean age = 65·4 (sd 9·97) years).
Grandparents’ perceptions related to personal food choice were related to health issues and the media. Grandparents’ perceived influence on their children’s and grandchildren’s food choices was described through the themes of proximity and power (level of influence based on an interaction of geographic proximity to grandchildren and the power given to them by their children and grandchildren to make food decisions), healthy v. unhealthy spoiling, cultural food tradition, and reciprocal exchange of knowledge.
Our results highlight areas for future research including nutrition interventions for older adults as well as factors that may be helpful to consider when engaging grandparents concerning food decisions for younger generations to promote health. Specifically, power should be assessed as part of a holistic approach to addressing dietary influence, the term ‘healthy spoiling’ can be used to reframe notions of traditional spoiling, and the role of cultural food tradition should be adapted differently by race.
Economic pressures continue to mount on modern-day livestock farmers, forcing them to increase herds sizes in order to be commercially viable. The natural consequence of this is to drive the farmer and the animal further apart. However, closer attention to the animal not only positively impacts animal welfare and health but can also increase the capacity of the farmer to achieve a more sustainable production. State-of-the-art precision livestock farming (PLF) technology is one such means of bringing the animals closer to the farmer in the facing of expanding systems. Contrary to some current opinions, it can offer an alternative philosophy to ‘farming by numbers’. This review addresses the key technology-oriented approaches to monitor animals and demonstrates how image and sound analyses can be used to build ‘digital representations’ of animals by giving an overview of some of the core concepts of PLF tool development and value discovery during PLF implementation. The key to developing such a representation is by measuring important behaviours and events in the livestock buildings. The application of image and sound can realise more advanced applications and has enormous potential in the industry. In the end, the importance lies in the accuracy of the developed PLF applications in the commercial farming system as this will also make the farmer embrace the technological development and ensure progress within the PLF field in favour of the livestock animals and their well-being.
This chapter considers available responses to the government’s speech that endangers constitutional values. It starts by outlining possibilities for, and barriers to, constitutional remedies that include injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. It then turns to a range of legislative, structural, and political possibilities for constructively influencing the government's expressive choices without resort to constitutional litigation. Statutory possibilities include laws that that require the government’s transparency, its deliberation, and its accuracy; or that limit the government’s speech on certain matters or for certain purposes. Other options include legislative oversight and impeachment, as well as rebuttals, protests, and other forms of counterspeech from other government officials, the press, and, of course, the people themselves—along with political remedies that include petitioning, lobbying, and voting.
The government is unique among speakers because of its coercive power as sovereign, its considerable resources, its privileged access to key information, and its wide variety of speaking roles as policymaker, commander-in-chief, employer, educator, health care provider, property owner, and more. The government’s expressive choices—and by this I mean the government’s choices about whether and when to speak, what to say, how to say it, and to whom—are neither inevitably good nor evil, but instead vary widely in their effects as well as their motives. Through its speech, the government informs, challenges, teaches, and inspires. Through its speech, the government also threatens, deceives, distracts, and vilifies. This chapter shines a light on the government’s speech in its many manifestations, with its vast array of audiences, topics, means, motives, and consequences. The more we recognize the volume and variety of the government’s speech in our lives, the more thoughtfully we can puzzle over its constitutional implications. After identifying some of the motivations for and consequences of those choices, this chapter introduces available options for constructively influencing them.
This chapter considers when the government’s speech violates the Equal Protection Clause. It starts with an illustrative sketch of the government’s wide-ranging speech about equality that features heroes, villains, and some that are hard to characterize. It then explores three different approaches to the Equal Protection Clause problems sometimes triggered by the government’s speech, approaches that consider the consequences of, and the motivations underlying, the government’s speech. First, does the government’s speech disadvantage its targets’ opportunities based on race (or other protected characteristic), and does the Clause bar the government from causing that disadvantage? Next, does the government’s speech inflict expressive harm by communicating hostility to or disrespect for its targets based on race (or other protected characteristic), and does the Clause bar the government from inflicting that harm? Finally, is the government’s speech motivated by animus, and does the Clause bar the government from speaking for that reason? The chapter closes by applying these approaches to several problems, including governments’ display of the Confederate flag.
This chapter considers when the government’s speech about others’ speech violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech or Free Press Clauses. It starts by exploring how the government’s speech can change, deter, or punish its targets’ speech: think of the government’s threats, disclosures, and designations that silence its targets’ speech, or its expressive attacks that incite or encourage third parties to punish its targets for their speech. It then examines the expressive harms inflicted by the government’s speech that disparages disfavored speakers, and whether that speech infringes Free Speech or Free Press Clause protections apart from any adverse effect on its targets’ choices and opportunities. Finally, turning from the consequences of the government’s speech about speech to its motives, it considers whether the Constitution prohibits the government’s expressive choices motivated by its intent to silence or punish speech to which it objects or its intent to interfere with the press's constitutionally protected functions. To illuminate the three approaches’ various strengths and limitations, the chapter closes by applying them to a range of problems both real and hypothetical.
This chapter explores when the government’s religious speech violates the EstablishmentClause, which commands that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” It examines how courts and commentators have identified at least three different approaches to this question. Under the noncoercion principle, we focus on the effects of the government’s religious, specifically asking whether it coerces listeners’ religious belief or practice. Under the nonendorsement principle, we ask whether the government’s speech endorses religion in ways that communicate a message of exclusion to nonadherents. Finally, under the neutrality principle, we turn to the government’s purposes, asking whether the government seeks to advance religion through its speech. The chapter then applies these approaches to a range of problems involving the government’s prayers, religious displays, and its statements that reflect religious animus. It closes by briefly considering when constitutional challenges to the government’s speech are justiciable—that is, when the federal courts have the constitutional power to decide them—a question to which later chapters will return.
This chapter explores longstanding debates over the government’s speech to influence the public’s views about ballot initiatives, referenda, and other political contests subject to vote by the people themselves or by their elected representatives. The chapter starts by explaining the constitutional objections to the government’s persuasive speech in candidate campaigns, and then considers whether those objections still hold as applied to the government’s persuasive speech in issue campaigns. One constitutional objection to the government’s political advocacy focus on the consequences of the government’s speech, positing that the government’s voice—with its advantages of resources and power—inevitably and unfairly distorts public discourse. Another focuses on the government’s objectives when speaking, maintaining that the government’s role as sovereign requires it to remain neutral in these contests. The chapter concludes that the government’s issue advocacy valuably adds to the marketplace of ideas so long as its governmental source is transparent, so long as the government does not hold a monopoly over the relevant information, and so long as counterspeech remains unfettered.
This chapter examines the Court’s government speech docket to date, which has focused on disputes that require it to determine when the government itself is speaking and when it is instead regulating others’ speech. It explains how the constitutional rules for the government as regulator of others’ speech differ from those that apply to the government as speaker: when the government itself is speaking, then the Free Speech Clause constraints on the government as regulator do not apply. It then offers a framework for approaching these problems that emphasizes the value of transparency—that is, an insistence that the governmental source of a message be transparent to the public as a condition of claiming the government speech defense to a Free Speech Clause challenge. It then applies the transparency principle to difficult first-stage problems to come that will require courts to unravel competing governmental and nongovernmental claims to the same speech, to determine when an individual government official speaks as the government or instead as a private citizen, and to ascertain when an individual public employee’s speech is the actually the government’s to control.
This chapter considers when the government’s speech deprives its targets of life, liberty, or property in violation of the Due Process Clause. It starts with a brief tour of the government’s lies and other falsehoods, illustrating their wide array of audiences, topics, motives, and effects. It then examines the government’s speech that interferes with its listeners’ choices in ways that would violate the Due Process Clause if the government accomplished those same changes through its lawmaking or other regulatory action: examples include law enforcement officers’ lies that coerce their targets’ waiver of constitutional liberties and the government’s lies that deny their targets the ability to exercise reproductive or voting rights. Next, it turns to the expressive harms sometimes inflicted by the government’s speech, investigating whether the government’s speech that shames or humiliates its targets offends due process protections. Finally, it turns fromt the effects of the government's speech to its purposes, exploring whether the Clause limits the government’s speech motivated by its intent to interfere with protected liberties or to inflict injury.
At its core, constitutional law addresses the uses and abuses of government power. This should include the use and abuses of the government’s expressive powers. This book describes and explores the complexities of the constitutional questions triggered by the government’s speech, and offers a framework for thinking about them. Its objectives also include shining a light on the government’s speech in its many manifestations, with its vast array of audiences, topics, means, motives, and consequences. The more we recognize the volume and variety of the government’s speech in our lives, the more thoughtfully we can puzzle over its constitutional implications. The government’s speech packs great power. Even—and perhaps especially—in times of grave crisis, the government’s speech can be soaring in its inspiration, its humanity, and in its success in achieving essential public purposes. At times, however, the government’s speech instead threatens, bullies, divides, and deceives for self-interested reasons, and sometimes with crushing results. This book identifies some of the motivations for and consequences of those choices, as well as possible means for constructively influencing them.
When we discuss constitutional law, we usually focus on the constitutional rules that apply to what the government does. Far less clear are the constitutional rules that apply to what the government says. When does the speech of this unusually powerful speaker violate our constitutional rights and liberties? More specifically, when does the government's expression threaten liberty or equality? And under what circumstances does the Constitution prohibit our government from lying to us? In The Government's Speech and the Constitution, Professor Helen Norton investigates the variety and abundance of the government's speech, from early proclamations and simple pamphlets, to the electronic media of radio and television, and ultimately to today's digital age. This enables us to understand how the government's speech has changed the world for better and for worse, and why the government's speech deserves our attention, and at times our concern.