When Breeze FM Radio, in the provincial Zambian town of Chipata, hired an elderly retired school teacher in 2003, no one anticipated the skyrocketing success that would follow. A self-styled grandfather on air, Gogo Breeze seeks intimacy over the airwaves and dispenses advice on a wide variety of grievances and transgressions. Multiple voices are broadcast and juxtaposed through call-ins and dialogue, but free speech finds its ally in the radio elder who, by allowing people to be heard and supporting their claims, reminds authorities of their obligations toward the disaffected. Harri Englund provides a masterfully detailed study of this popular radio personality that addresses broad questions of free speech in Zambia and beyond. By drawing on ethnographic insights into political communication, Englund presents multivocal morality as an alternative to dominant Euro-American perspectives, displacing the simplistic notion of voice as individual personal property an idea common in both policy and activist rhetoric. Instead, Englund focuses on the creativity and polyphony of Zambian radio while raising important questions about hierarchy, elderhood, and ethics in the public sphere. A lively, engaging portrait of an extraordinary personality, Gogo Breeze will interest Africanists, scholars of radio and mass media, and anyone interested in the history and future of free speech.

A controversial argument for reconsidering the limits of free speech Swirling in the midst of the resurgence of neo-Nazi demonstrations, hate speech, and acts of domestic terrorism are uncomfortable questions about the limits of free speech. The United States stands apart from many other countries in that citizens have the power to say virtually anything without legal repercussions. But, in the case of white supremacy, does the First Amendment demand that we defend Nazis? In Must We Defend Nazis?, legal experts Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic argue that it should not. Updated to consider the white supremacy demonstrations and counter-protests in Charlottesville and debates about hate speech on campus and on the internet, the book offers a concise argument against total, unchecked freedom of speech. Delgado and Stefancic instead call for a system of free speech that takes into account the harms that hate speech can inflict upon disempowered, marginalized people. They examine the prevailing arguments against regulating speech, and show that they all have answers. They also show how limiting free speech would work in a legal framework and offer suggestions for activist lawyers and judges interested in approaching the hate speech controversy intelligently. As citizens are confronting free speech in contention with equal dignity, access, and respect, Must We Defend Nazis? puts aside cliches that clutter First Amendment thinking, and presents a nuanced position that recognizes the needs of our increasingly diverse society.

A controversial argument for reconsidering the limits of free speech Swirling in the midst of the resurgence of neo-Nazi demonstrations, hate speech, and acts of domestic terrorism are uncomfortable questions about the limits of free speech. The United States stands apart from many other countries in that citizens have the power to say virtually anything without legal repercussions. But, in the case of white supremacy, does the First Amendment demand that we defend Nazis? In Must We Defend Nazis?, legal experts Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic argue that it should not. Updated to consider the white supremacy demonstrations and counter-protests in Charlottesville and debates about hate speech on campus and on the internet, the book offers a concise argument against total, unchecked freedom of speech. Delgado and Stefancic instead call for a system of free speech that takes into account the harms that hate speech can inflict upon disempowered, marginalized people. They examine the prevailing arguments against regulating speech, and show that they all have answers. They also show how limiting free speech would work in a legal framework and offer suggestions for activist lawyers and judges interested in approaching the hate speech controversy intelligently. As citizens are confronting free speech in contention with equal dignity, access, and respect, Must We Defend Nazis? puts aside cliches that clutter First Amendment thinking, and presents a nuanced position that recognizes the needs of our increasingly diverse society.

This book proposes a new perspective on the role of literature in the Cold War and shifts the reader's attention to the gaps in the ostensibly impenetrable Iron Curtain. It uncovers the histories of the widely forgotten phenomenon of tamizdat: "publishing-over-there". Investigating the transfer of nonconformist literature from the "Other Europe" to Western Europe and the United States fosters a new perspective on the seemingly separable literary cultures of Cold War Europe. Based on very extensive, multi-language archival research, Written Here, Published There uses several types of materials: besides literature and political texts, also interviews, audio and video recordings, materials collected at exhibitions, conference papers, and press clippings. This approach allows for the broader look at the whole phenomenon of breaching of the borders by "publishing abroad." Perceiving tamizdat not only as a literary but also as a social phenomenon, the monograph focuses on the individual's ways of participating in this border-crossing activity, the use of secretive channels to guarantee the flow of literature, and its contribution to the creation of a transnational literary community.

Captivated at a young age by Russia, Marianna Tax Choldin immersed herself as a student at the University of Chicago in that country's language and culture. In her book she describes the tension between her strong commitment to freedom of expression and her growing understanding of Russian and Soviet censorship. Fluent in Russian, she travels widely in post-Soviet Russia, speaking with hundreds of Russians about their own censorship history. She writes of the close friendships she formed in Russia, and reflects on her Jewish roots in the country her family had left behind 100 years earlier.

The academy is in crisis. Students call for speakers to be banned, books to be slapped with trigger warnings and university to be a Safe Space, free of offensive words or upsetting ideas. But as tempting as it is to write off intolerant students as a generational blip, or a science experiment gone wrong, they've been getting their ideas from somewhere. Bringing together leading journalists, academics and agitators from the US and UK, Unsafe Space is a wake-up call. From the war on lad culture to the clampdown on climate sceptics, we need to resist all attempts to curtail free speech on campus. But society also needs to take a long, hard look at itself. Our inability to stick up for our founding, liberal values, to insist that the free exchange of ideas should always be a risky business, has eroded free speech from within.

This edited collection addresses a number of free speech vs security concerns that are engaged by counter-terrorism law and policy makers across a number of liberal democracies, and explores the delicate balance between free speech and the censoring of views that promote hatred or clash with fundamental democratic values. It does this by looking at the perspectives and level of disagreement between those who consider today's counter-terrorism and extremism strategies to be a soft and liberal approach, and those who believe these strategies disproportionately impact freedom of expression and association and non-violent political dissent. The contributors include academics, practicing lawyers, and think-tank analysts who examine whether universities and schools incubators of violent radicalism and debate, and whether the views of `extremist' speakers and hate preachers need to be censored. Outside the UK, critical discussion of the regulation of counter-terrorism, extremism, and free speech in other liberal democracies is also offered. This book will be of great interest to researchers and practitioners with interests in extremism, terrorism, civil rights, and freedom of speech.

Should news reporters express political opinions on their personal Twitter accounts? Are advertisements that look like news deceptive or simply creative? How much public relations "spin" is appropriate when communicating during an environmental crisis? Media Ethics Today: Issues, Analysis, Solutions charts a thoughtful path through increasingly complex ethical issues faced by today's journalism, advertising, and public relations practitioners. The book lays a foundation for ethical decision making in mass media by focusing on fundamental values and examining their application to each field. It explores current issues involving privacy, deception, plagiarism, and diversity; analyzes dilemmas arising from the use of digital imagery; and discusses social media's implications for public engagement, from citizen journalism to consumer reviews. Rich in real-world examples of success and failure, the book helps aspiring media practitioners learn to identify ethical concerns and employ practical templates for making sound decisions. Designed to provoke debate and guide problem solving, Media Ethics Today will add an important dimension to courses in communication ethics, journalism, and strategic communication.