Your cart is empty
Of the American Bill of Rights, perhaps the forty-five words that comprise the First Amendment -- allowing freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and the guaranty of the writ of habeas corpus -- are the most precious. Only a legal expert could lay claim to truly understanding the meaning and intention of those basic freedoms. Yet it is precisely the expert, knowing the complexity of the subject, who would be the first to hesitate to claim to possess such a thorough understanding. In analyzing such freedoms basic to American society, Milton Konvitz helps make comprehending our fundamental liberties easier.
The book is divided into three parts: I. Freedom of Religion; II. Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly; III. Freedom of Speech, Press, and Assembly: The Clear and Present Danger Doctrine. The reader will find included such topics as the debate over the scope of the separation of Church and State, whether or not freedom of religion is an absolute right, religious freedom prior to 1776, the liberty of private schools, heresy, the right for a religious group to seek converts, the freedoms not to speak and listen, obscene literature, picketing in labor disputes, the freedom to think and believe, abridgments of speech and press, and loyalty oaths and guilt by association.
Konvitz's work includes an important chapter on the history of the adoption of the Bill of Rights. His careful tracing of the development of constitutional attitudes to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment is a scholarly benchmark, and is still an archetype for students doing research and writing about these issues. It is of critical importance to anyone seeking an authoritative statement on thebasic liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Fundamental Liberties of a Free People is a relevant and practical guide to understanding the liberties so fundamental to a free society. In his new introduction and afterword, author Milton Konvitz brings First Amendment developments up to 2002. It will be welcomed by students and scholars of constitutional law, government, politics, religion, and American history.
Americans should not just tolerate dissent. They should encourage it. In this provocative and wide-ranging book, Steven Shiffrin makes this case by arguing that dissent should be promoted because it lies at the heart of a core American value: free speech. He contends, however, that the country's major institutions--including the Supreme Court and the mass media--wrongly limit dissent. And he reflects on how society and the law should change to encourage nonconformity.
Shiffrin is one of the country's leading first-amendment theorists. He advances his dissent-based theory of free speech with careful reference to its implications for such controversial topics of constitutional debate as flag burning, cigarette advertising, racist speech, and subsidizing the arts. He shows that a dissent-based approach would offer strong protection for free speech--he defends flag burning as a legitimate form of protest, for example--but argues that it would still allow for certain limitations on activities such as hate speech and commercial speech. Shiffrin adds that a dissent-based approach reveals weaknesses in the approaches to free speech taken by postmodernism, Republicanism, deliberative democratic theory, outsider jurisprudence, and liberal theory.
Throughout the book, Shiffrin emphasizes the social functions of dissent: its role in combating injustice and its place in cultural struggles over the meanings of America. He argues, for example, that if we took a dissent-based approach to free speech seriously, we would no longer accept the unjust fact that public debate is dominated by the voices of the powerful and the wealthy. To ensure that more voices are heard, he argues, the country should take such steps as making defamation laws more hospitable to criticism of powerful people, loosening the grip of commercial interests on the media, and ensuring that young people are taught the importance of challenging injustice.
Powerfully and clearly argued, Shiffrin's book is a major contribution to debate about one of the most important subjects in American public life.
This timely and important book presents a compelling new theory of political education for liberal democracies. Amidst current concern over the need to encourage a morally sensitive and committed citizenry, Professor Callan's study provides a much-needed balanced discussion of the proper ends of education, as well as the moral rights of parents and children.
Has legislation over-reached itself? The contributors to this volume discuss whether the increase in legislative instruments of many kinds, often promoted with good intentions, may be progressively limiting both our individual and our communal freedoms. Contributors include Bernard Crick, Maurice Peston and James Ferman discuss this key idea in accessible and forthright style.
Literary Freedom: a Cultural Right to Literature is a non-fiction study of literary freedom from a political-philosophical perspective. It adds an original perspective on the issue of literary freedom as it synthesizes debates from human rights as well as providing a new way of addressing the question 'How do we mitigate against the harm caused by hate speech?' by applying Amartya Sen's capability approach to this question.
Oxford Political Theory presents the best new work in contemporary political theory. It is intended to be broad in scope, including original contributions to political philosophy, and also work in applied political theory. The series contains works of outstanding quality with no restriction as to approach or subject matter. The series editors are Will Kymlicka, David Miller, and Alan Ryan. Any liberal democratic state must honour religious and cultural pluralism in its educational policies. To fail to honour them would betray ideals of freedom and toleration fundamental to liberal democracy. Yet if such ideals are to flourish from one generation to the next, allegiance to the distinctive values of liberal democracy is a necessary educational end, whose pursuit will constrain pluralism. The problem of political education is therefore to ensure the continuity across generations of the constitutive ideals of liberal democracy, while remaining hospitable to a diversity of conduct and belief that sometimes threatens those very ideals. Creating Citizens addresses this crucial problem. In lucid and elegant prose, Professor Callan, one of the world's foremost philosophers of education, identifies both the principal ends of civic education, and the rights that limit their political pursuit. This timely study sheds light on some of the most divisive educational controversies, such as state sponsorship and regulation of denominational schooling, as well as the role of non-denominational schools in the moral and political development of children.
Contrary to popular assumption, the development of stronger oversight mechanisms actually leads to greater secrecy rather than the reverse. When Should State Secrets Stay Secret? examines modern trends in intelligence oversight development by focusing on how American oversight mechanisms combine to bolster an internal security system and thus increase the secrecy of the intelligence enterprise. Genevieve Lester uniquely examines how these oversight mechanisms have developed within all three branches of government, how they interact, and what types of historical pivot points have driven change among them. She disaggregates the concept of accountability into a series of specified criteria in order to grapple with these pivot points. This book concludes with a discussion of a series of normative questions, suggesting ways to improve oversight mechanisms based on the analytical criteria laid out in the analysis. It also includes a chapter on the workings of the CIA to which a number of CIA officers contributed.
Although an inchoate liberty theory of freedom of speech has deep roots in Supreme Court decisions and political history, it has been overshadowed in judicial decisions and scholarly commentary by the marketplace of ideas theory. In this book, Baker critiques the assumptions required by the marketplace of ideas theory and develops the liberty theory, showing its philosophical soundness, persuasiveness, and ability to protect free speech. He argues that First Amendment liberty rights (as well as Fourteenth Amendment equality rights) required by political or moral theory are central to the possibility of progressive change. Problem areas are examined, including the question of whether individual political and civil rights can in principle be distinguished from property rights, freedom of the press, and the use of public spaces for expressive purposes.
The Amendment has not been ratified by the United Kingdom.
In his book "Human Rights: Group Defamation, Freedom of Expression and" "the Law of Nations," Thomas David Jones presents a discussion and analysis of the laws governing group defamation and speech inciteful of racial hatred in Great Britain, Canada, India, Nigeria, and the United States. Although there exists no federal group defamation law in the United States, a few state legislatures have promulgated group defamation statutes, while a cause of action for group defamation has been recognized as justiciable in the decision law of other states. Mr Jones describes his theory as constitutional minimalism because he does not advocate the legal proscription of all derogatory hate speech. Only the sub-category of hate speech that fulfills the standard elements of proof found in common law defamation claim will be prosecuted criminally by the federal government. The author further asserts that a carefully and narrowly drafted federal criminal group defamation statute will pass constitutional muster without creating a conflict with First Amendment rights.
In a 1969 landmark case, the US Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of student for protesting the Vietnam War violated the First Amendment. On what grounds do public school students merit First Amendment protection? The author reviews the obstacles of this important issue and suggests a mix of protection and autonomy for students.
At the bottom of every controversy embroiling the university today - from debates over hate-speech codes to the reorganization of the academy as a multicultural institution - is the concept of academic freedom. But academic freedom is almost never mentioned in these debates. Now nine leading academics consider the problems confronting the American university in terms of their effect on the future of academic freedom. Whom and what does academic freedom protect? Are restrictions on hate speech compatible with the academic freedom of inquiry? Must academic freedom have epistemological foundations, or should it be reconceived as an ethical practice? If the American university is now undergoing a radical reorganization, both intellectual and economic, what are the threats to the freedoms of inquiry and expression that professors and students have traditionally taken for granted? The essays respond to critics of the university, but they also respond to one another: Rorty and Haskell argue about the epistemological foundations of academic freedom; Gates and Sunstein discuss the legal and educational logic of speech codes. But in the end the volume achieves an unexpected consensus about the need to reconceive the concept of academic freedom in order to meet the threats and risks of the future.
Drop that quotation/sample/collage, sir! An enlightening, amusing,
and frightening look at how the growth of intellectual property law
is making us all less free to say and think what we want.
This book demonstrates that neither the current liberal nor conservative positions on the McCarthy era provide the basis for a clear normative perspective. Examining the era through the lens of the theory of free expression, it becomes apparent that both sides have basically missed the key point. While recently declassified documents demonstrate widespread participation by American Communists in conducting or facilitating espionage, much of the negative treatment they received had little or nothing to do with such activity. From the perspective of the First Amendment right of free speech, there exists a significant difference between speech that advocates conduct, on the one hand, and speech that itself is part of a nonspeech criminal act, such as espionage, on the other. By helping to separate protected speech from unprotected "speech-acts," First Amendment theory can do much to distinguish between the legitimate governmental responses to American Communism and those that contravened basic notions of communicative freedom protected by the Constitution. At the same time, by focusing the First Amendment inquiry on the McCarthy era, one should be able to glean insights about the broader implications of free speech protection.
The extraordinary twists and turns of WikiLeaks have been closely followed by the Guardian newspaper ever since the website launched in 2006, and Guardian journalists have had unprecedented access to all the major players, from angry and embarrassed politicians and diplomats to the extraordinary figure of Julian Assange himself. Here they reveal the many strands--legal, ethical, security related--of a story that continues to dominate world headlines. WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy presents the whole history of the organization and the ethical debate that surrounded the use of its material, plus the inside story of the personalities that created then threatened to destroy the website that has changed our view of secrecy forever.
"A meticulous, well-tuned examination of what Janowitz says is the
decline of civic thought in America, and what might be done to
restore it. . . . The patriotism Janowitz proposes to reconstruct
is not the sort of narrow nationalism your political science
professor may have warned you about--patriotism as 'the last refuge
of a scoundrel.' It is instead a patriotism that intelligently
appreciates life in a (however imperfect) democratic land."--Robert
Marquand, "The Christian Science Monitor"
"Morris Janowitz examines an issue that seldom is subject to social and political analysis--patriotism. His thesis is clear: The long-term trend in politics has been to enhance citizen rights without effective articulation of citizen obligations. A meaningful balance between the two, he contends, must be restored. . . . The strength of this study lies in Janowitz's persuasive argument that the durability and vitality of democratic institutions require that a sense of community, or shared values, be preserved. Without civiz consciousness, he rightly observes, social and political fragmentation ensues. . . . A lucid and impressively researched polemic."--W. Wesley McDonald, "American Political Science Review"
"Janowitz addresses a seminal issue: how to restore the sense of shared civic responsibility that has fallen victim in recent years to our growing preoccupation with individual rights and the rise of special-interest groups. . . . Central to his prescription is the revival of the concept of the citizen soldier, whose importance since pre-Revolutionary War days Janoqitz discusses at length. He concludes, 'There can be no reconstruction of patriotism without a system of national service.' . . . An important book. I highly recommend it."--"Washington Monthly"
Americans often believe that the First Amendment and free speech are synonymous and that all restrictions on speech can be addressed by the legal framework of the First Amendment. Political theorist Samuel P. Nelson argues that the current legal framework for free speech actually undermines attempts to resolve many of these issues and that the law of the First Amendment has supplanted the vital politics of free speech.
To cut through the confusion, Nelson takes a step back from the First Amendment framework to understand the social nature of speech, moving toward a more pluralistsic and value-based understanding. He examines three philosophies commonly used to justify speech protection -- libertarianism, expressivism, and egalitarianism -- and finds none of them sufficiently responsive in today's contemporary political landscape.
Advocating an approach grounded in value pluralism -- which describes a wider variety of free speech claims than the First Amendment allows -- Nelson pushes the debate beyond constitutional and legal questions.
Whilst the protection of political speech is essential to the
preservation of a democratic legal order, events of political
violence and assassinations highlight the need to rethink questions
relating to the boundaries of free speech in a democratic society.
Freedom of expression has long been cherished as a liberal ideal. But in the political climate of the new millennium free expression finds itself under assault. Muslims greeted the publication by a Danish newspaper of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad with outrage. The Pope was forced to issue an apology after Muslims denounced his remarks about a Byzantine emperor as anti-Islamic. Meanwhile in the UK, the play Behzti was cancelled after protests by Sikhs and Christian activists attempted to force the BBC not to screen Jerry Springer: the Opera. The political establishment, as well as religious activists, has also tried to gag free speech. Moves to ban inciting religious hatred and "glorifying" acts of terrorism, have stirred up political ferment. In several jurisdictions Holocaust denial is already outlawed. The advent of the internet, with its lack of regulation, has fuelled long-standing feminist concerns about pornography. Child pornography has become rampant on the web. This collection explores the new challenges to free expression posed by cultural and political conflict and by technological change. It asks whether classical and modern liberalism still carry conviction against challenges to liberal orthodoxy. The contributors ask how to weigh the claims of free expression against other fundamental rights such as group membership, personal privacy, and the protection of the public sphere both as a discursive realm, and as a cultural space. Together they tackle the key questions facing free expression today: What does free expression mean in an age of global communications? How, if at all, can it be traded against other goods? Can free speech survive, given the growing awareness of its costs?
You may like...
Cass R. Sunstein Hardcover
The Multipolar Challenge to Free…
Kirsty Hughes, Natasha Schmidt Paperback R207 Discovery Miles 2 070
New Explorations into International…
Seung-Whan Choi Paperback R694 Discovery Miles 6 940
Sport on Trial
Jo Glanville Paperback R189 Discovery Miles 1 890
Cambridge Studies on Civil Rights and…
Helen Norton Hardcover
No Safe Spaces
Dennis Prager, Mark Joseph Hardcover (1)
After Charlie Hebdo - Terror, Racism and…
Gavan Titley, Des Freedman, … Paperback R399 Discovery Miles 3 990
Edward Snowden Hardcover (1)
On the Burning of Books
Kenneth Baker Hardcover
Secrecy Wars - National Security…
Philip H. Melanson Paperback