 However, the more precise metaphor of a marketplace of ideas comes from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. The first reference to the "free trade in ideas" within "the competition of the market" appears in 1919 within US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States.Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) The actual phrase "marketplace of ideas" first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Rumely in 1953: "Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas". The Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined the marketplace of ideas as the dominant public policy in American free speech law (that is, against which narrow exceptions to freedom of speech must be justified by specific countervailing public policies). While the previous cases dealt with natural persons, the 1976 decision Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council expanded it to corporations by creating a curtailed corporate commercial speech right, striking down a government regulation of advertising in the process. It has not been seriously questioned since in United States jurisprudence, but the legacy of those decisions have led to subsequent decisions like Citizens United v. FEC that curtailed the government's ability to regulate corporate speech and much more expansive advertising campaigns, commercial and political than Americans had experienced previously. Reliability In recent years, questions have arisen regarding the existence of markets in ideas. Several scholars have noted differences between the way ideas are produced and consumed and the way more traditional goods are produced and consumed.See, e.g., How Much Does a Belief Cost? Revisiting the Marketplace of Ideas, Gregory Brazeal, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, vol. 21 no. 1, p. 1 (2011); The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?, Robert Sparrow & Robert Goodin, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 4 no. 2, p. 45 (2001); Speech, Truth, and the Free Market for Ideas, Alvin I. Goldman & James C. Cox, Legal Theory, vol. 2, p. 1 (1996). It has also been argued that the idea of the marketplace of ideas as applied to religion "incorrectly assumes a level playing field" among religions.See, e.g., Makau Mutua, Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. In addition, the idea of a marketplace of ideas has been applied to the study of scientific research as a social institution . Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues in his 2017 book A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy that political fragmentation in Europe (the presence of a large number of European states) made it possible for heterodox ideas to thrive, as entrepreneurs, innovators, ideologues, and heretics could easily flee to a neighboring state in the event that the one state would try to suppress their ideas and activities. This is what set Europe apart from the technologically advanced, large unitary empires such as China and India. China had both a printing press and movable type, and India had similar levels scientific and technological achievement as Europe in 1700, yet the Industrial Revolution would occur in Europe, not China or India. In Europe, political fragmentation was coupled with an "integrated market for ideas" where Europe's intellectuals used the lingua franca of Latin, had a shared intellectual basis in Europe's classical heritage and the pan-European institution of the Republic of Letters .
Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues in his 2017 book A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy that political fragmentation in Europe (the presence of a large number of European states) made it possible for heterodox ideas to thrive, as entrepreneurs, innovators, ideologues, and heretics could easily flee to a neighboring state in the event that the one state would try to suppress their ideas and activities. This is what set Europe apart from the technologically advanced, large unitary empires such as China and India. China had both a printing press and movable type, and India had similar levels scientific and technological achievement as Europe in 1700, yet the Industrial Revolution would occur in Europe, not China or India. In Europe, political fragmentation was coupled with an "integrated market for ideas" where Europe's intellectuals used the lingua franca of Latin, had a shared intellectual basis in Europe's classical heritage and the pan-European institution of the Republic of Letters. However, the more precise metaphor of a marketplace of ideas comes from the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the United States. The first reference to the "free trade in ideas" within "the competition of the market" appears in 1919 within US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in Abrams v. United States.Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) The actual phrase "marketplace of ideas" first appears in a concurring opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in the Supreme Court decision United States v. Rumely in 1953: "Like the publishers of newspapers, magazines, or books, this publisher bids for the minds of men in the market place of ideas". The Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio enshrined the marketplace of ideas as the dominant public policy in American free speech law (that is, against which narrow exceptions to freedom of speech must be justified by specific countervailing public policies). While the previous cases dealt with natural persons, the 1976 decision Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council expanded it to corporations by creating a curtailed corporate commercial speech right, striking down a government regulation of advertising in the process. It has not been seriously questioned since in United States jurisprudence, but the legacy of those decisions have led to subsequent decisions like Citizens United v. FEC that curtailed the government's ability to regulate corporate speech and much more expansive advertising campaigns, commercial and political than Americans had experienced previously. Reliability In recent years, questions have arisen regarding the existence of markets in ideas. Several scholars have noted differences between the way ideas are produced and consumed and the way more traditional goods are produced and consumed.See, e.g., How Much Does a Belief Cost? Revisiting the Marketplace of Ideas, Gregory Brazeal, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, vol. 21 no. 1, p. 1 (2011); The Competition of Ideas: Market or Garden?, Robert Sparrow & Robert Goodin, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 4 no. 2, p. 45 (2001); Speech, Truth, and the Free Market for Ideas, Alvin I. Goldman & James C. Cox, Legal Theory, vol. 2, p. 1 (1996). It has also been argued that the idea of the marketplace of ideas as applied to religion "incorrectly assumes a level playing field" among religions.See, e.g., Makau Mutua, Facilitating Freedom of Religion or Belief, A Deskbook. In addition, the idea of a marketplace of ideas has been applied to the study of scientific research as a social institution .
A
Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues in his 2017 book A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy that political fragmentation in Europe (the presence of a large number of European states) made it possible for heterodox ideas to thrive, as entrepreneurs, innovators, ideologues, and heretics could easily flee to a neighboring state in the event that the one state would try to suppress their ideas and activities. This is what set Europe apart from the technologically advanced, large unitary empires such as China and India. China had both a printing press and movable type, and India had similar levels scientific and technological achievement as Europe in 1700, yet the Industrial Revolution would occur in Europe, not China or India. In Europe, political fragmentation was coupled with an "integrated market for ideas" where Europe's intellectuals used the lingua franca of Latin, had a shared intellectual basis in Europe's classical heritage and the pan-European institution of the Republic of Letters.
D
.
D
Economic historian Joel Mokyr argues in his 2017 book A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy that political fragmentation in Europe (the presence of a large number of European states) made it possible for heterodox ideas to thrive, as entrepreneurs, innovators, ideologues, and heretics could easily flee to a neighboring state in the event that the one state would try to suppress their ideas and activities. This is what set Europe apart from the technologically advanced, large unitary empires such as China and India. China had both a printing press and movable type, and India had similar levels scientific and technological achievement as Europe in 1700, yet the Industrial Revolution would occur in Europe, not China or India. In Europe, political fragmentation was coupled with an "integrated market for ideas" where Europe's intellectuals used the lingua franca of Latin, had a shared intellectual basis in Europe's classical heritage and the pan-European institution of the Republic of Letters