As suggested by this book, the First Amendment has been a “victim” of its own success. Written by a leading First Amendment scholar, it provides the analytical tools for making sense of this sentiment and for understanding, why, as free speech rights expanded in the last 15 years, the total realm of liberty has been contracting in this country. For instance, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), Citizens United v. FEC (2010), Janus v. AFSCME (2018), and Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015) were all major First Amendment “victories” that were counter-intuitive under traditional First Amendment rationales that liberals have long championed. More such “victories” are likely to occur in the future, portending setbacks for women’s rights, gay rights, and environmental justice – as feared by progressive jurists, people who long championed the First Amendment to achieve the aims of social justice. As a nation, we romanticize the First Amendment while being ignorant of it. As Zick points out, the First Amendment has a magmatism or gravity that redefines other legal and cultural interests in its image. Hence, the press, litigants, courts, the media, and scholars tend to approach constitutional rights as isolated concepts grounded in heroic figures, with First Amendment heroes being the most towering. This makes it difficult to appreciate that rights do not exist in isolation, nor are they static or hierarchical (i.e., no constitutional right has preference over another; the role of courts is to find ways to balance the different interests involved in a specific case). The problem, according to Zick, is a reading of the First Amendment that collapses its five parts into one generic “freedom of speech” sentiment, which loses the “relational dimensions” of rights generally to capitalize upon their synergies with each other. Other clauses and amendments are weakened by zealous protection of “free speech” against other equally important non-speech interests. To remedy this, Zick champions a “Rights Pluralism” grounded in a “Rights Dynamism,” which emphasizes interactions that construct their meanings, creating jurisprudential and rhetorical opportunity on both the left and the right to promote their interests:

中文翻译：

---

动态言论自由条款：言论自由及其与其他宪法权利的关系

正如本书所建议的那样，《第一修正案》是其自身成功的“受害者”。该书由一位著名的《第一修正案》学者撰写，提供了分析工具，可以用来理解这一观点并理解为什么言论自由权在过去15年中不断扩大，而整个自由领域却在这个国家不断收缩。例如，Brown诉娱乐商人协会（2011），Burwell诉Hobby Lobby Stores（2014），Citizens United诉FEC（2010），Janus诉AFSCME（2018）和Reed诉Gilbert镇（2015）在自由主义者长期拥护的传统《第一修正案》理论基础上，所有主要的《第一修正案》胜利都是与直觉相反的。将来可能会出现更多这样的“胜利”，预示着妇女权利，同性恋权利，和环境正义–正如进步法学家所担心的，长期拥护《第一修正案》以实现社会正义目标的人们。作为一个国家，我们对第一修正案进行了浪漫化处理，却对此一无所知。正如Zick指出的那样，《第一修正案》具有岩浆作用或引力作用，重新定义了其形象中的其他法律和文化利益。因此，新闻界，诉讼人，法院，媒体和学者倾向于将宪法权利视为基于英雄人物的孤立概念，其中《第一修正案》英雄最为崇高。这使人们很难理解，权利不是孤立存在的，也不是静态的或分等级的（即，宪法权利不优先于另一权利；法院的作用是找到平衡具体案件中不同利益的方法） 。问题，齐克认为，这是对《第一修正案》的解读，该修正案将其五个部分分解为一种通用的“言论自由”情感，这种情感丧失了通常要利用彼此之间的协同作用的权利的“关系维度”。狂热地保护“言论自由”免受其他同样重要的非语音利益的影响，削弱了其他条款和修正案。为了解决这个问题，Zick倡导以“权利动态主义”为基础的“权利多元主义”，强调强调相互作用的意义，在左右两边创造法学和修辞的机会，以促进他们的利益：这种做法通常失去了权利的“关系维度”，无法充分利用权利之间的协同作用。狂热地保护“言论自由”免受其他同样重要的非语音利益的影响，削弱了其他条款和修正案。为了解决这个问题，Zick倡导以“权利动态主义”为基础的“权利多元主义”，强调强调相互作用的意义，在左右两边创造法学和修辞的机会，以促进他们的利益：这种做法通常失去了权利的“关系维度”，无法充分利用权利之间的协同作用。狂热地保护“言论自由”免受其他同样重要的非语音利益的影响，削弱了其他条款和修正案。为了解决这个问题，Zick倡导以“权利动态主义”为基础的“权利多元主义”，强调强调相互作用的意义，在左右两边创造法学和修辞的机会，以促进他们的利益：