"We cannot hope simply to retain our old prerogatives.
Our bridges are gone and the Rubicon is yet to cross?
We have either to assume a large new role or to abdicate entirely.
It is the age of paratroopers."
­­ Marshall McLuhan ¹

McLuhan's metaphor is an invitation and, at the same time, a warning. It is a call to action and a question. In the context of the first amendment, the metaphor is particularly powerful: it challenges us to cross the Rubicon into a hostile territory of jurisprudence.

Today's first­amendment theory is largely the province of a conception of freedom of expression grounded in eighteenth­century fears of government's tyrannical censorship. This theory, we maintain, is ill­ equipped to deal with a distinct tyranny in late twentieth­century America, a tyranny playing upon the public's insatiable appetite for amusement. Crossing the Rubicon requires understanding the differences between the old and new tyrannies, and appreciating the complexities of developing first­amendment principles to suit a new cultural environment. Those who attempt such a venture are the first­amendment paratroopers of our time, the ones who realize that we cannot retain our old constitutional prerogatives in a transformed world.

Today the forces of capitalism encourage exploitation of highly advanced electronic technology to accelerate the age­old human drive for self­ gratification. The consumptive thrust of unchecked capitalism affects all public discourse. This phenomenon is most apparent in the culture of commercial television, a culture in which America's most beloved toy provides unceasing mass amusement. Essentially, "the predicament of American television is the predicament of American culture and politics as a whole."' ² Public discourse is increasingly taking a distinctive and aestheticized form consistent with the look and feel of commercial television. The aestheticization of public discourse is essential to the effective marketing of ideas and commercial goods in a highly consumptive economy: marketing is, after all, essentially a selling of image. The business of television trades in the economy of such images and has pulled other discourse into that economy. With entertainment as the paradigm for most public discourse, traditional first­ amendment values­­which stress civic restraint ³ and serious dialogue­­are overshadowed. Given these core values and the anticensorial direction of first­ amendment theory, is there anything that could (or should) be done to thwart, rather than to feed, an amusement­centered culture?