Why do we protect free speech? What values does it serve? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment? What has the Court gotten right and wrong? Why are current debates over free expression often so divisive? How can we do better? In this succinct but comprehensive and scholarly book, authors Len Niehoff and Thomas Sullivan tackle these pressing questions. Free Speech: From Core Values to Current Debates traces the development and evolution of the free speech doctrine in the Supreme Court and explores how the Court - with varying levels of success - has applied that doctrinal framework to "hard cases" and current controversies, such as those involving hate speech, speech on the internet, speech on campus, and campaign finance regulation. This is the perfect volume for anyone - student, general reader, or scholar - looking for an accessible overview of this critical topic.

Why do we protect free speech? What values does it serve? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment? What has the Court gotten right and wrong? Why are current debates over free expression often so divisive? How can we do better? In this succinct but comprehensive and scholarly book, authors Len Niehoff and Thomas Sullivan tackle these pressing questions. Free Speech: From Core Values to Current Debates traces the development and evolution of the free speech doctrine in the Supreme Court and explores how the Court - with varying levels of success - has applied that doctrinal framework to "hard cases" and current controversies, such as those involving hate speech, speech on the internet, speech on campus, and campaign finance regulation. This is the perfect volume for anyone - student, general reader, or scholar - looking for an accessible overview of this critical topic.

The Free Speech Discussion Forum is an annual event that is designed to bring together prominent scholars from all over the world to discuss cutting-edge free speech issues. The 2021 meeting was hosted by the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz. Two major topics were discussed at the 2021 forum: "Robotic Speech" and "Contemporary Threats to Speech." The "Robotic Speech" topic included examination of such things as "chatbots," data-driven speech, "deep fakes," and the potential for internet speech to interfere with democratic elections. The "Contemporary Threats to Speech" focused on a variety of topics, including the growth and power of social media platforms. This compendium includes selected articles that were discussed at the Forum. It also honors the long-standing faculty exchange of the University of Mainz's School of Law and die Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville, Kentucky.

Offensive street speech--racist and sexist remarks that can make its targets feel both psychologically and physically threatened--is surprisingly common in our society. Many argue that this speech is so detestable that it should be banned under law. But is this an area covered by the First Amendment right to free speech? Or should it be banned?

In this elegantly written book, Laura Beth Nielsen pursues the answers by probing the legal consciousness of ordinary citizens. Using a combination of field observations and in-depth, semistructured interviews, she surveys one hundred men and women, some of whom are routine targets of offensive speech, about how such speech affects their lives. Drawing on these interviews as well as an interdisciplinary body of scholarship, Nielsen argues that racist and sexist speech creates, reproduces, and reinforces existing systems of hierarchy in public places. The law works to normalize and justify offensive public interactions, she concludes, offering, in essence, a "license to harass."

Nielsen relates the results of her interviews to statistical surveys that measure the impact of offensive speech on the public. Rather than arguing whether law is the appropriate remedy for offensive speech, she allows that the benefits to democracy, to community, and to society of allowing such speech may very well outweigh the burdens imposed. Nonetheless, these burdens, and the stories of the people who bear them, should not remain invisible and outside the debate.

Enacted in 1966, The Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) was designed to promote oversight of governmental activities, under the notion that most users would be journalists. Today, however, FOIA is largely used for purposes other than fostering democratic accountability. Instead, most requesters are either individuals seeking their own files, businesses using FOIA as part of commercial enterprises, or others with idiosyncratic purposes like political opposition research. In this sweeping, empirical study, Margaret Kwoka documents how agencies have responded to the large volume of non-oversight requesters by creating new processes, systems, and specialists, which in turn has had a deleterious impact on journalists and the media. To address this problem, Kwoka proposes a series of structural solutions aimed at shrinking FOIA to re-center its oversight purposes.

Enacted in 1966, The Freedom of Information Act (or FOIA) was designed to promote oversight of governmental activities, under the notion that most users would be journalists. Today, however, FOIA is largely used for purposes other than fostering democratic accountability. Instead, most requesters are either individuals seeking their own files, businesses using FOIA as part of commercial enterprises, or others with idiosyncratic purposes like political opposition research. In this sweeping, empirical study, Margaret Kwoka documents how agencies have responded to the large volume of non-oversight requesters by creating new processes, systems, and specialists, which in turn has had a deleterious impact on journalists and the media. To address this problem, Kwoka proposes a series of structural solutions aimed at shrinking FOIA to re-center its oversight purposes.

Free speech has positive dimensions of enablement and negative dimensions of non-restraint, both of which require protection for democracy to have substantial communicative legitimacy. In Democracy of Expression, Andrew Kenyon explores this need for sustained plural public speech linked with positive communicative freedom. Drawing on sources from media studies, human rights, political theory, free speech theory and case law, Kenyon shows how positive dimensions of free speech could be imagined and pursued. While recognising that democratic governments face challenges of public communication and free speech that cannot be easily solved, Kenyon argues that understanding the nature of these challenges (including the value of positive free speech) at least makes possible a democracy of expression in which society has a voice, formulates judgments, and makes effective claims of government. In this groundbreaking work, Kenyon not only reframes how we conceptualize free speech, but also provides a roadmap for reform.

Free speech has positive dimensions of enablement and negative dimensions of non-restraint, both of which require protection for democracy to have substantial communicative legitimacy. In Democracy of Expression, Andrew Kenyon explores this need for sustained plural public speech linked with positive communicative freedom. Drawing on sources from media studies, human rights, political theory, free speech theory and case law, Kenyon shows how positive dimensions of free speech could be imagined and pursued. While recognising that democratic governments face challenges of public communication and free speech that cannot be easily solved, Kenyon argues that understanding the nature of these challenges (including the value of positive free speech) at least makes possible a democracy of expression in which society has a voice, formulates judgments, and makes effective claims of government. In this groundbreaking work, Kenyon not only reframes how we conceptualize free speech, but also provides a roadmap for reform.

Should "hate speech" be made a criminal offense, or does the First Amendment oblige Americans to permit the use of epithets directed against a person's race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, or sexual preference? Does a campus speech code enhance or degrade democratic values? When the American flag is burned in protest, what rights of free speech are involved? In a lucid and balanced analysis of contemporary court cases dealing with these problems, as well as those of obscenity and workplace harassment, acclaimed First Amendment scholar Kent Greenawalt now addresses a broad general audience of readers interested in the most current free speech issues.

The Corruption of Ethos in Fortress America: Billionaires, Bureaucrats, and Body Slams argues that authoritarian strains of U.S. governance violate the idea of ethos in its ancient, collectivist sense. Christopher Carter posits that this corrupts the cultural "dwelling place" through public relations strategies, policies on race and immigration, and a general disregard for environmental concerns. Donald Trump's presidency provides a signal instance of the problem, refashioning the dwelling place as a fortress while promoting sweeping forms of exclusion and appealing to power for power's sake. Carter's analysis shows that, emboldened by the purported flexibility of truth, Trump's authoritarian rhetoric underwrites unrestrained policing, militarized borders, populist nationalism, and relentless assaults on investigative journalism. These trends bode ill for human rights and critical education as well as progressive social movements and the forms of life they entail. Worse yet, the corruption of ethos threatens life in general by privileging corporate prerogatives over ecological attunement. In response to those tendencies, Carter highlights modes of activism that merge antiracist and labor rhetoric to offer a more fluid, unpredictably emergent vision of social space, allying with ecofeminism in ways that make that vision durable. Scholars of rhetoric, political science, history, ecology, race studies, and American studies will find this book particularly useful.

This book explains the past and present status of hate speech regulations in Japan. The United States and European countries have adopted different approaches to resolve their respective hate speech problems. Both of them, however, continue to confront the dilemma that freedom of speech and anti-racism are fundamental values of human rights. Therefore, some scholars criticize the US approach as too protective of freedom of speech, while other scholars criticize the European approach as impermissibly violating that freedom. Compared to these countries, Japan is unique in that it does not criminalize hate speech and hate crime other than in the recently enacted Kawasaki City Ordinance criminalizing some kinds of hate speech. Japan basically relies on a comprehensive set of non-regulative tools to suppress extreme hate speech. This volume analyses Japanese hate speech laws and suggests a unique distinctive model to strike a balance between both core values of democracy.

The principles of freedom of expression have been developed over centuries. How are they reserved and passed on? How can large internet gatekeepers be required to respect freedom of expression and to contribute actively to a diverse and plural marketplace of ideas? These are key issues for media regulation, and will remain so for the foreseeable decades. The book starts with the foundations of freedom of expression and freedom of the press, and then goes on to explore the general issues concerning the regulation of the internet as a specific medium. It then turns to analysing the legal issues relating to the three most important gatekeepers whose operations directly affect freedom of expression: ISPs, search engines and social media platforms. Finally it summarises the potential future regulatory and media policy directions. The book takes a comparative legal approach, focusing primarily on English and American regulations, case law and jurisprudential debates, but it also details the relevant international developments (Council of Europe, European Union) as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from "abridging the freedom of speech," but does not define what that freedom entails. Chapter 1 provides a broad overview of the main categories of protected and unprotected speech in First Amendment jurisprudence. Chapter 2 examines the scope of protection extended to freedom of speech in thirteen selected countries. In particular, the chapter focuses on the limits of protection that may apply to the right to interrupt or affect in any other way public speech. It also addresses the availability of mechanisms to control foreign broadcasters working on behalf of foreign governments. Chapter 3 highlights the First Amendment and examines those places where the right to free speech is being stifled and sometimes even silenced by government. Chapter 4 begins by outlining the current legal framework governing social media sites' treatment of users' content, focusing on the First Amendment and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA).

Intellectual freedom is a complex concept that democracies and free societies around the world define in different ways but always strive to uphold. And ALA has long recognized the crucial role that libraries play in protecting this right. But what does it mean in practice? How do library workers handle the ethical conundrums that often accompany the commitment to defending it? Rather than merely laying out abstract policies and best practices, this important new collection gathers real-world stories of intellectual freedom in action to illuminate the difficulties, triumphs, and occasional setbacks of advocating for free and equal access to information for all people in a shifting landscape. Offering insight to LIS students and current practitioners on how we can advance the profession of librarianship while fighting censorship and other challenges, these personal narratives explore such formidable situations as: presenting drag queen story times in rural America; a Black Lives Matter "die-in" at the undergraduate library of the University of Wisconsin-Madison; combating censorship at a prison library; hosting a moderated talk about threats to modern democracy that included a neo-Nazi spokesman; a provocative exhibition that triggered intimidating phone calls, emails, and a threat to burn down an art library; calls to eliminate non-Indigenous children's literature from the collection of a tribal college library; and preserving patrons' right to privacy in the face of an FBI subpoena. These stories provide a rich platform for debate and introspection by sharing real-world examples that library staff, administrators, board members, and students can consider and discuss.