In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Justice William Brennan famously wrote of “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” “Uninhibited” refers to the lack of government restrictions on debate, and “wide-open” denotes the range of voices participating in that debate. Meanwhile, “robust” is a qualitative adjective that denotes strength, a characteristic whose definition in First Amendment cases is open to interpretation. Examining the use of the word “robust” in cases since Sullivan allows for an analysis of the interplay of First Amendment theory and doctrine that transcends the boundaries of particular areas and issues of First Amendment law. This article analyzes the Court’s use of the word “robust” in First Amendment cases after Sullivan. It finds that perspectives from negative and affirmative First Amendment theory offer competing claims about the best doctrinal recipes for foster robust debate. Using a theoretical framework that combines Robert Post’s notion of constitutional domains with Vincent Blasi’s civic courage theory, the study presents an alternative perspective for the elements of robust debate. The article ends with some prescriptions for First Amendment theory and doctrine.

中文翻译：

---

什么是“健壮”的公开辩论？最高法院在第一修正案中使用“强壮”一词的分析

在《纽约时报公司诉沙利文案》中，威廉·布伦南法官（William Brennan）著名地写道：“国家对这一原则的深刻承诺，即对公共问题的辩论应不受限制，积极而开放。” “不受限制”是指政府对辩论缺乏限制，“开放”是指参加辩论的声音范围。同时，“健壮”是定性形容词，表示力量，这一特征在《第一修正案》中的定义尚待解释。自沙利文以来，在案例中检查了“稳健”一词的使用可以分析“第一修正案”理论与超越特定领域和《第一修正案》法律问题的学说之间的相互作用。本文分析了在沙利文案之后的第一修正案中法院对“稳健”一词的使用。它发现，从《第一修正案》的否定和肯定的观点出发，人们对最好的教条配方提出了相互竞争的主张，以促进激烈的辩论。通过使用将罗伯特·波斯特（Robert Post）的宪法领域概念与文森特·布拉西（Vincent Blasi）的公民勇气理论相结合的理论框架，该研究为激烈辩论的要素提供了另一种视角。本文以对第一修正案理论和学说的一些规定作为结尾。