Secondary Effects and Public Morality
- Autores
- Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J
- Año de publicación
- 2017
- Idioma
- inglés
- Tipo de recurso
- artículo
- Estado
- versión publicada
- Descripción
- The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability.
Fil: Legarre, Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. University of Notre Dame-Indiana; Estados Unidos. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina "Santa María de los Buenos Aires"; Argentina
Fil: Mitchell, Gregory J. Notre Dame Law School; Estados Unidos - Materia
-
Secondary Effects
Public Morality-Natural Law
Supreme Court - Nivel de accesibilidad
- acceso abierto
- Condiciones de uso
- https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
- Repositorio
- Institución
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
- OAI Identificador
- oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79911
Ver los metadatos del registro completo
id |
CONICETDig_c588ddc4a39d32db5727316f357eb394 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79911 |
network_acronym_str |
CONICETDig |
repository_id_str |
3498 |
network_name_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
spelling |
Secondary Effects and Public MoralityLegarre, SantiagoMitchell, Gregory JSecondary EffectsPublic Morality-Natural LawSupreme Courthttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.4https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability.Fil: Legarre, Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. University of Notre Dame-Indiana; Estados Unidos. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina "Santa María de los Buenos Aires"; ArgentinaFil: Mitchell, Gregory J. Notre Dame Law School; Estados UnidosHarvard Law School2017-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/79911Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J; Secondary Effects and Public Morality; Harvard Law School; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 40; 1; 4-2017; 320-3580193-4872CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2972229info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:55:05Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79911instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:55:05.89CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality |
title |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality |
spellingShingle |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality Legarre, Santiago Secondary Effects Public Morality-Natural Law Supreme Court |
title_short |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality |
title_full |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality |
title_fullStr |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality |
title_full_unstemmed |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality |
title_sort |
Secondary Effects and Public Morality |
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv |
Legarre, Santiago Mitchell, Gregory J |
author |
Legarre, Santiago |
author_facet |
Legarre, Santiago Mitchell, Gregory J |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Mitchell, Gregory J |
author2_role |
author |
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv |
Secondary Effects Public Morality-Natural Law Supreme Court |
topic |
Secondary Effects Public Morality-Natural Law Supreme Court |
purl_subject.fl_str_mv |
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.4 https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5 |
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv |
The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability. Fil: Legarre, Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. University of Notre Dame-Indiana; Estados Unidos. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina "Santa María de los Buenos Aires"; Argentina Fil: Mitchell, Gregory J. Notre Dame Law School; Estados Unidos |
description |
The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-04 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501 info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/79911 Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J; Secondary Effects and Public Morality; Harvard Law School; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 40; 1; 4-2017; 320-358 0193-4872 CONICET Digital CONICET |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/79911 |
identifier_str_mv |
Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J; Secondary Effects and Public Morality; Harvard Law School; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 40; 1; 4-2017; 320-358 0193-4872 CONICET Digital CONICET |
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2972229 |
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/ |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Harvard Law School |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Harvard Law School |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET) instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
reponame_str |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
collection |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) |
instname_str |
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar |
_version_ |
1842269323706499072 |
score |
13.13397 |