This Article documents the unnecessary complexity of the
judicial formulations most frequently used in resolving the most
common kinds of free speech cases. It is suggested that free
speech cases are often dubiously decided because of the sheer
distraction of considerations that are really tangential to justify-
ing restrictions on speech. Therefore, this Article recommends a
more concentrated judicial focus on free speech cases. The better analysis measures the gains and losses in the fulfillment of
the purposes underlying the free speech clause, both from the
subjective standpoint of the speaker and from the standpoint of
other affected parties. These gains or losses due to governmental
regulation of speech should be the central judicial concern. They
should be measured in light of the purposes underlying the free
speech clause, focusing particularly on the value of the options
or choices available to speakers and their audiences before and
after implementation of the governmental regulation in question
