Your cart is empty
This book is a plea for scientific openness and free access to information. It demonstrates the futility of scientific secrecy and the weakness of national arguments against open communication. From the restriction of technologically advanced exports, to the classification of research as restricted or secret, to the monitoring (and censoring) of scientific publications and library collections, to the pre-emption by the Pentagon of scientific and technological research, the U.S. federal government has achieved a state of unprecedented control over American science and technology. This, despite the end of the Cold War. Foerstel examines this continuing trend toward the state as chief sponsor, promoter, and supervisor of scientific research and its unsettling ramifications.
Foerstel concludes that scientific secrecy is counterproductive to American interests, particularly in an era when economics has come to define national security. His controversial analysis will be of interest to scientists, historians, and students of government alike.
This book examines the consequences of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. While Americans benefit from its broad protection of freedom of speech, they also suffer from the extremes which result from interpretation of the same amendment. Bollinger provides a masterly critique of the major theories of freedom of expression, finding them persuasive but inadequate. Buttressing his argument with references to many specific cases, as well as with careful analysis of the primary literature on free speech, he contends that the real value of toleration of extremist speech lies in the extraordinary self-control toward antisocial behaviour that it elicits: society is strenthened by the exercise of tolerance.
This game situates students in the Multiparty Negotiating Process taking place at the World Trade Center in Kempton Park in 1993. South Africa is facing tremendous social anxiety and violence. The object of the talks, and of the game, is to reach consensus for a constitution that will guide a post-apartheid South Africa. The country has immense racial diversity--white, black, Colored, Indian. For the negotiations, however, race turns out to be less critical than cultural, economic, and political diversity. Students are challenged to understand a complex landscape and to navigate a surprising web of alliances. The game focuses on the problem of transitioning a society conditioned to profound inequalities and harsh political repression into a more democratic, egalitarian system. Students will ponder carefully the meaning of democracy as a concept and may find that justice and equality are not always comfortable partners with liberty. While for the majority of South Africans, universal suffrage was a symbol of new democratic beginnings, it seemed to threaten the lives, families, and livelihoods of minorities and parties outside the African National Congress coalition. These deep tensions in the nature of democracy pose important questions about the character of justice and the best mechanisms for reaching national decisions.
This book is about Freedom of Speech and public discourse in the United States. Freedom of Speech is a major component of the cultural context in which we live, think, work, and write, generally revered as the foundation of true democracy. But the issue has a great deal more to do with social norms rooted in a web of cultural assumptions about the function of rhetoric in social organization generally, and in a democratic society specifically. The dominant, liberal notion of free speech in the United States, assumed to be self-evidently true, is, in fact, a particular historical and cultural formation, rooted in Enlightenment philosophies and dependent on a collection of false narratives about the founding of the country, the role of speech and media in its development, and the relationship between capitalism and democracy. Most importantly, this notion of freedom of speech relies on a warped sense of the function of rhetoric in democratic social organization. By privileging individual expression, at the expense of democratic deliberation, the liberal notion of free speech functions largely to suppress rather than promote meaningful public discussion and debate, and works to sustain unequal relations of power. The presumed democratization of the public sphere, via the Internet, raises more questions than it answers-who has access and who doesn't, who commands attention and why, and what sorts of effects such expression actually has. We need to think a great deal more carefully about the values subsumed and ignored in an uncritical attachment to a particular version of the public sphere. This book seeks to illuminate the ways in which cultural framing diminishes the complexity of free speech and sublimates a range of value-choices. A more fully democratic society requires a more critical view of freedom of speech.
Although there has been a lot written about how counter-terrorism laws impact on human rights and civil liberties, most of this work has focussed on the most obvious or egregious kinds of human rights abrogation, such as extended detention, torture, and extraordinary rendition. Far less has been written about the complex ways in which Western governments have placed new and far-reaching limitations on freedom of speech in this context since 9/11. This book compares three liberal democracies - the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, in particular showing the commonalities and similarities in what has occurred in each country, and the changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, achieved both in policy change and the justification for that change. In all three countries much speech has been criminalized in ways that were considered anachronistic, or inappropriate, in comparable policy areas prior to 9/11. This is particularly interesting because other works have suggested that the United States' unique protection of freedom of speech in the First Amendment has prevented speech being limited in that country in ways that have been pursued in others. This book shows that this kind of argument misses the detail of the policy change that has occurred, and privileges a textual reading over a more comprehensive policy-based understanding of the changes that have occurred. The author argues that we are now living a new-normal for freedom of speech, within which restrictions on speech that once would have been considered aberrant, overreaching, and impermissible are now considered ordinary, necessary, and justified as long as they occur in the counter-terrorism context. This change is persistent, and it has far reaching implications for the future of this foundational freedom.
We love freedom. We hate racism. But what do we do when these values collide? In this wide-ranging book, Erik Bleich explores policies that the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and other liberal democracies have implemented when forced to choose between preserving freedom and combating racism. Bleich's comparative historical approach reveals that while most countries have increased restrictions on racist speech, groups and actions since the end of World War II, this trend has resembled a slow creep more than a slippery slope. Each country has struggled to achieve a balance between protecting freedom and reducing racism, and the outcomes have been starkly different across time and place. Building on these observations, Bleich argues that we should pay close attention to the specific context and to the likely effects of any policy we implement, and that any response should be proportionate to the level of harm the racism inflicts. Ultimately, the best way for societies to preserve freedom while fighting racism is through processes of public deliberation that involve citizens in decisions that impact the core values of liberal democracies.
Now that the Supreme Court has equated money with speech and thrown out campaign spending limits, Americans want to know what they can do about it. Derek Cressman gives them the tools, both ideological and tactical, to fight back. Cressman points out that there's nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting speech. We do it all the time-for example, cities control when and where demonstrations can take place, or how long people can speak at council meetings. More importantly, he argues that while you choose to patronize Fox News, MSNBC, The New York Times, or the Wall Street Journal when they exercise their free speech rights, political advertising is forced upon you. It's paid speech-not at all what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. Cressman looks at why attempts to limit paid political speech have failed so far, what a constitutional amendment limiting paid speech should say, and explains how citizens can use an overlooked political tool to help gain its passage. Seven times in our history we've passed constitutional amendments to overturn wrongheaded rulings by the Court-there's no reason we can't do it again.
Scales on Censorship: Real Life Lessons from School Library Journal contains Pat R. Scales collected columns, all written in response to active book challenges or questions of intellectual freedom and library ethics. These columns have a ripped from the headlines immediacy even as they reflect the core values and policies of librarianship. They are organized by topic and each is framed with a brief new introductory essay. Scales' powerful reputation and practical ethically-based solutions has made her a key spokesperson and support for librarians working under a censorship siege.
This little gem of a book, which first appeared in 1920, was written in Walter Lippmann's thirtieth year. He was still full of the passionate faith in democracy that was evident in his writings before the First World War. From today's point of view, Lippmann's argument seems unusually prescient. He was troubled by distortions in newspaper journalism, but was also deeply aware of the need to protect a free press. Lippmann believed that toleration of alternative beliefs was essential to maintaining the vitality of democracy. Liberty and the News is a key transitional work in the corpus of Lippmann's writings. For it is here that he proposes that public opinion is largely a response not to truths but rather to a "pseudo-environment" which exists between people and the external world. Lippmann was worried that if the beliefs that get exchanged between people are hollow, and bear only a purely accidental relationship to the world as it truly is, then the entire case for democracy is in danger of having been built on sand. His concerns remain very much alive and important.
Free speech and freedom of the press were often suppressed amid the social turbulence of the Progressive Era and World War I. As muckrakers, feminists, pacifists, anarchists, socialists, and communists were arrested or censored for their outspoken views, many of them turned to a Manhattan lawyer named Gilbert Roe to keep them in business and out of jail. Roe was the principal trial lawyer of the Free Speech League-a precursor of the American Civil Liberties Union. His cases involved such activists as Emma Goldman, Lincoln Steffens, Margaret Sanger, Max Eastman, Upton Sinclair, John Reed, and Eugene Debs, as well as the socialist magazine The Masses and the New York City Teachers Union. A friend of Wisconsin's progressive senator Robert La Follette since their law partnership as young men, Roe defended ""Fighting Bob"" when the Senate tried to expel him for opposing America's entry into World War I. In articulating and upholding Americans' fundamental right to free expression against charges of obscenity, libel, espionage, sedition, or conspiracy during turbulent times, Roe was rarely successful in the courts. But his battles illuminate the evolution of free speech doctrine and practice in an era when it was under heavy assault. His greatest victory, including the 1917 decision by Judge Learned Hand in The Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten, is still influential today.
Strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) involves lawsuits brought by individuals, corporations, groups, or politicians to curtail political activism and expression. An increasingly large part of the political landscape in Canada, they are often launched against those protesting, boycotting, or participating in some form of political activism. A common feature of SLAPPs is that their intention is rarely to win the case or secure a remedy; rather, the suit is brought to create a chill on political expression.
"Blocking Public Participation" examines the different types of litigation and causes of action that frequently form the basis of SLAPPs, and how these lawsuits transform political disputes into legal cases, thereby blocking political engagement. The resource imbalance between plaintiffs and defendants allows plaintiffs to tie up defendants in complex and costly legal processes. The book also examines the dangers SLAPPs pose to political expression and to the quality and integrity of our democratic political institutions. Finally, the book examines the need to regulate SLAPPs in Canada and assesses various regulatory proposals.
In Canada, considerable attention has been paid to the "legalization of politics" and the impact on the Charter in diverting political activism into the judicial arena. SLAPPs, however, are an under-studied element of this process, and in their obstruction of political engagement through recourse to the courts they have profound implications for democratic practice.
How free are students and teachers to express unpopular ideas in public schools and universities? Not free enough, Joan DelFattore suggests. Wading without hesitation into some of the most contentious issues of our times, she investigates battles over a wide range of topics that have fractured school and university communities-homosexuality-themed children's books, research on race-based intelligence, the teaching of evolution, the regulation of hate speech, and more-and with her usual evenhanded approach offers insights supported by theory and by practical expertise. Two key questions arise: What ideas should schools and universities teach? And what rights do teachers and students have to disagree with those ideas? The answers are not the same for K-12 schools as they are for public universities. But far from drawing a bright line between them, DelFattore suggests that we must consider public education as a whole to determine how-and how successfully-it deals with conflicting views. When expert opinion clashes with popular belief, which should prevail? How much independence should K-12 teachers have? How do we foster the cutting-edge research that makes America a world leader in higher education? What are the free-speech rights of students? This uniquely accessible and balanced discussion deserves the full attention of everyone concerned with academic goals and agendas in our schools.
Most liberal societies are deeply committed to a principle of free speech. At the same time, however, there is evidence that some kinds of speech are harmful in ways that are detrimental to important liberal values, such as social equality. Might a genuine commitment to free speech require that we legally permit speech even when it is harmful, and even when doing so is in conflict with our commitment to values like equality? Even if such speech is to be legally permitted, does our commitment to free speech allow us to provide material and institutional support to those who would contest such harmful speech? And finally, and perhaps most importantly, which kinds of speech are harmful in ways that merit response, either in the form of legal regulation or in some other form? This collection explores these and related questions. Drawing on expertise in philosophy, sociology, political science, feminist theory, and legal theory, the contributors to this book investigate these themes and questions. By exploring various categories of speech (including pornography, hate speech, Holocaust denial literature, 'Whites Only' signs), and attending to the precise functioning of speech, the essays contained here shed light on these questions by clarifying the relationship between speech and harm. Understanding how speech functions can help us work out which kinds of speech are harmful, what those harms are, and how the speech in question brings them about. All of these issues are crucially important when it comes to deciding what ought to be done about allegedly harmful speech.
This book is a must-read for anyone studying and researching the rise and fall of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy and McCarthyism in American political life. * Provides an overview of McCarthyism and the postwar Red Scare, relating these mindsets to other waves of domestic persecution * Includes 12 relevant historic documents such as the Truman Loyalty Oaths; a transcript of McCarthy's speech in Wheeling, West Virginia; McCarthy's attacks on Acheson and Marshall; Margaret Chase Smith's Statement on Conscience; and the Senate's censure of McCarthy * Provides information on the First Red Scare and the emergence of the American fear of the Left and the potential for a revolution * Includes 11 short biographies of primary individuals associated with McCarthyism and the Red Scare * Presents a chronology of events that threatened or weakened individual rights throughout the 20th century, with a specific focus on the Red Scare periods of 1919-21 and 1945-57 * An annotated bibliography includes primary and secondary sources representing the most significant contemporary and scholarly works on the topic
In 1966 the United States Congress passed the landmark Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) giving the public the right to access government documents. This "right to know" has been used over the intervening years to challenge overreaching Presidents and secretive government agencies. This example of governmental transparency has served as an inspiring case in point to nations around the world, spawning similar statutes in fifty-nine countries. Yet, despite these global efforts to foster openness in government, secrecy still persists--and in many cases--sometimes thrives. Alasdair Roberts, a prominent lawyer, public policy expert, and international authority on transparency in government, examines the evolution of the trend toward governmental openness and how technological developments have assisted the disclosure and dissemination of information. In the process he offers a comprehensive look at the global efforts to restrict secrecy and provides readers with a clearly written guide to those areas where the battle over secrecy is most intense. Drawing on cases from many different countries, Roberts goes further than the popular view that secrecy is simply a problem of selfish bureaucrats trying to hide embarrassing information by showing how such powerful trends as privatization, globalization, and the "networking" of security agencies are complicating the fight against secrecy. In our time when new terror threats provoke potentially counter-productive measures that impede openness, the need for a thorough and dispassionate discussion of openness in democratic societies is especially acute. Written in an engaging style, Blacked Out powerfully illustrates why transparency matters and why the struggle for openness is so difficult. Alasdair Roberts is Associate Professor in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and Director of the Campbell Public Affairs Institute at Syracuse University. An internationally-recognized specialist on open government, he has written over thirty journal articles and book chapters. He is a 2005 recipient of the Johnson Award for Best Paper in Ethics and Accountability in the Public Sector. He has been a fellow of the Open Society Institute and the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, and is a member of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue's Transparency Task Force.
The law of defamation contemplates the clash of two fundamental rights: the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the media, and the right to reputation. The rules of defamation law are designed to mediate between these two rights. The central proposition that this book makes is that defamation law needs to be reformed to balance the conflicting rights. This discussion flows from a theoretical analysis of the rights in issue; the value underlying the right to reputation that has most resonance is human dignity, while the value that is most apposite to freedom of expression in this context is the argument that free speech is integral to democracy. The argument from democracy emphasizes that speech on matters of public interest should receive greater protection than private speech. This book argues that fundamental rules of defamation law need to be reformed to take into account the dual importance of public interest speech on the one hand, and the right to human dignity on the other. In particular, the presumptions that defamatory allegations are false and have caused damage, the principle of strict liability to primary publishers and negligence liability to secondary publishers, and the availability of punitive damages, should not survive constitutional scrutiny. The quantum of damages and costs rules, and the remedies available in defamation cases, should also be reformed to reflect the importance of dignity to the claimant, and the free speech interest of the public in receiving accurate information on matters of public interest.
Two weeks after the United States declared war on Germany in 1917, the town of Lewistown, Montana, held a patriotic parade. Less than a year later, a mob of 500 Lewistown residents burned German textbooks in Main Street while singing "The Star Spangled Banner." In Lewistowns nationalistic fervor, a man was accused of being pro-German because he didnt buy Liberty Bonds; he was subsequently found guilty of sedition. Montanas former congressman Tom Stout was quoted in the towns newspaper, "The Democrat-News, "With our sacred honor and our liberties at stake, there can be but two classes of American citizens, patriots and traitors!
"Darkest Before Dawn" takes to task Montanas 1918 sedition law that shut down freedom of speech. The sedition law carried fines of up to $20,000 and imprisonment for as many as twenty years. It became a model for the federal sedition act passed in 1918. Clemens Work explores the assault on civil rights during times of war when dissent is perceived as unpatriotic. The themes of this cautionary tale clearly resonate in the events of the early twenty-first century.
This is history at its exciting, human best. Clemens Work tells the little-known story of how Americans were punished for what they said during World War I: imprisoned, brutalized, lynched. It is a crucial part of the American struggle for freedom of speech.Anthony Lewis, columnist for the "New York Times" and author of "Gideons Trumpet" and "Make No Law"
Clem Work has written a colorful and engaging account of a rough-and-tumble era when exercising your right of free speech could get you tossed into jail, or worse. Works description of the frenzied and often irrational reaction to dissent duringwartime is truly timeless, disturbingly reminiscent of our own world, post-9/11/01. This book reminds us just how fragile Americans allegiance to the First Amendment can be.Jane E. Kirtley, Silha Professor of Media Ethics and Law, University of Minnesota
Work offers a new way of thinking about a broader topicseditionand one in which new insights are provided. That, in my mind, is the essence of scholarship.--Charles N. Davis, executive director of The National Freedom of Information Center at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and associate professor of journalism
""Darkest Before Dawn" makes an important contribution to the literature of the history of free speech in America. No future study of sedition laws could hope to be complete without drawing on this well researched and well written work. Clem Work has made his mark--and what a marvelous mark it is!"--Ronald K. L. Collins, scholar, The First Amendment Center
Book Details Montana's Attack on Dissent in World War I Era (article by Charles S. Johnson, chief of the Lee Newspapers State Bureau in Helena, Montana):
"As U.S. troops fight in Iraq, Montanans heatedly debate whether we should be engaged in that war. This robust discussion is exactly as it should be in a country that has enshrined the right to free speech in its Constitution's Bill of Rights.
"But the ability to comment candidly, in speech and writing, on this country's policies should never be taken for granted. Clemens P. Work's excellent new book, "Darkest before Dawn: Sedition and Free Speech in the American West," describes in absorbing detail one of the darkest eras in Montana history in which dissenting voices were stifled.
"During World War I, some Montanans opposing U.S. involvement in the war and those immigrants expressing pro-German, anti-American sentiments in beer halls found themselves arrested. Seventy-four Montanans all but one of them men-were convicted of sedition. Forty of these men and the one lone woman served sentences of up to 20 years at Montana State Prison in Deer Lodge and faced fines of up to $20,000.
"Montana's frightening Sedition Act, enacted by a special legislative session and becoming law Feb. 22, 1918, became a model for the Federal Sedition Act, which was enacted May 16, 1918. The language defining sedition in the federal law is identical to the Montana law except for three words.
"It is a shameful, frightening yet fascinating story. Yet it's one many Montanans know nothing about. It should be taught in our schools at all levels so we dont repeat the mistakes of our past.
"The book, published this fall, is a well-written, fully documented history of the period. It sets the stage for what happened here, describes the terrifying events and puts the Montana era in a national context. Work, director of graduate studies at the University of Montana School of Journalism, weaves a compelling story about what led to the dissenting voices.
"Western Montana's two major industries then were mining and timber, which faced an insurgent labor movement upset over unsafe working conditions and low wages. The radical labor group, the Industrial Workers of the World, or Wobblies, helped stir the pot. Miners walked off the job at the Anaconda Copper Mining Co.'s Speculator Mine in 1917 after a fire killed 168 workers and exposed dangerous, illegal working conditions.
"The powerful Anaconda Copper MiningCo. dominated Montana economically and politically as few corporations ever have nationally. Its copper was a critical product in the war effort. The Company had the ears, if not the souls, of most of the state's leading politicians. It also either owned, or had in its pocket, most of Montana's major daily newspapers.
"The United States entered the war in 1917. By no means did all Montanans embrace the idea. Many German immigrants saw no reason for the United States to fight against their homeland, nor did all Irish immigrants support this country bailing out Great Britain.
"Dissent was not tolerated in Montana as a wave of super-patriotism spread. Besides passing the Sedition Act, a special legislative session emboldened the Montana Council of Defense, previously a minor group urging people to grow gardens and buy bonds. The Legislature granted the council the extraordinary power to pass virtual statewide laws.
"The council soon banned German books and forbade the use of the German language here, even in the pulpit, driving Mennonites into Canada. The council encouraged neighbor spying on neighbor, with the full encouragement of spineless politicians, with a few exceptions such as U.S. Attorney and later Sen. Burton K. Wheeler and U.S. District Judge George M. Bourquin.
"The Montana press followed the council in lockstep, with a few courageous exceptions such as William F. Dunn, fiery editor of the "Butte Bulletin," a labor paper.
Work said most sedition convictions in Montana were based on "offhand outburst, often in saloons," usually by blue-collar workers, many of them immigrants, often using foul language.
"As part of his research, Work created the Montana SeditionProject (Web site: http: //www.seditionproject.net/), and, with students' help, has tracked down relatives of some of those convicted and seeks to learn more about others. As Work wrote on the Web site, 'Those caught in Montana's sedition net were hardly heroes, but they should not have been scapegoats either.'
"Among those reading Work's book with keen interest is Gov. Brian Schweitzer, whose grandparents were German-Russian farmers who immigrated to Montana nearly a century ago.
"'What made this country great is the melting pot because we accept a lot of different nationalities, ' Schweitzer said. 'They came here because they wanted to be here. Most were like my grandparents. They came here because they had nowhere else to go.'"Asked if he might issue posthumous pardons to some Montanans convicted of sedition nearly 90 years ago, Schweitzer said he hadn't thought of it. Then he said, 'Why not? I will look into pardons. This was a time of some pretty mass hysteria. Why not clear the names of some of the people?'"
For more information go to www.seditionproject.net/
This volume explores the state of academic freedom in the United
States and abroad. What impact have the attacks of September 11th
and the ensuing war on terrorism had on free speech, access to
information, government funding of the sciences, and other
cornerstones of freedom of inquiry at American universities? How
has the renewed emphasis on patriotism affected the "culture wars"
that aroused so much controversy on American campuses? And how does
academic freedom in the United States compare to that of other
"The Anarchist in the Library" is the first guide to one of the most important cultural and economic battlegrounds of our increasingly plugged-in world. Siva Vaidhyanathan draws the struggle for information that will determine much of the culture and politics of the twenty-first century: anarchy or oligarchy, total freedom vs. complete control. His acclaimed book explores topics from unauthorized fan edits of "Star Wars" to terrorist organizations' reliance on "leaderless resistance," from Napster to Total Information Awareness to flash mobs.
At a time when campaign finance reform is widely viewed as synonymous with cleaning up Washington and promoting political equality, Bradley Smith, a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance reform, argues that all restriction on campaign giving should be eliminated. In "Unfree Speech," he presents a bold, convincing argument for the repeal of laws that regulate political spending and contributions, contending that they violate the right to free speech and ultimately diminish citizens' power.
Smith demonstrates that these laws, which often force ordinary people making modest contributions of cash or labor to register with the Federal Election Commission or various state agencies, fail to accomplish their stated objectives. In fact, they have worked to entrench incumbents in office, deaden campaign discourse, burden grassroots political activity with needless regulation, and distance Americans from an increasingly professional, detached political class. Rather than attempting to plug "loopholes" in campaign finance law or instituting taxpayer-financed campaigns, Smith proposes a return to core First Amendment values of free speech and an unfettered right to engage in political activity.
Smith finds that campaign contributions have little corrupting effect on the legislature and shows that an unrestrained system of contributions and spending actually enhances equality. More money, not less, is needed in the political system, Smith concludes. "Unfree Speech" draws upon constitutional law and historical research to explain why campaign finance regulation is doomed and to illustrate the potentially drastic costs of efforts to make it succeed. Whatever one thinks about the impact of money on electoral politics, no one should take a final stand without reading Smith's controversial and important arguments.
You may like...
The Multipolar Challenge to Free…
Kirsty Hughes, Natasha Schmidt Paperback R207 Discovery Miles 2 070
The Madness of Crowds - Gender, Race and…
Murray Douglas Murray Paperback (1)
No Safe Spaces
Dennis Prager, Mark Joseph Hardcover (1)
Cass R. Sunstein Hardcover
Principled Spying - The Ethics of Secret…
David Omand, Mark Phythian Hardcover
You Can't Read This Book - Censorship in…
Nick Cohen Paperback (1)
Secrecy Wars - National Security…
Philip H. Melanson Paperback
Edward Snowden Hardcover (1)
Who's Afraid of Academic Freedom?
Akeel Bilgrami, Jonathan R. Cole Hardcover
Wikileaks And The Age Of Transparency
Micah L. Sifry Paperback (1)
R225 Discovery Miles 2 250