Mark Tushnet presents a concise yet comprehensive overview of free expression law, understood as a form of constitutional law. Confronting the major issues of free expression - speech critical of government, libel law, hate speech regulation, and the emerging challenges posed by new technologies - he evaluates the key questions and potential difficulties for future generations. Contrasting the United States with current law in Europe and elsewhere, Tushnet argues that freedom of expression around the world should reflect deference to legislative judgements, unless those judgements reflect inadequate deliberation or bias, and that much of the existing free expression law is consistent with this view. Key features include: Comprehensible for both students of law and non-specialist readers interested in freedom of expression from a legal perspective Viewpoints from multiple legal systems including analysis of decisions made by the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights Explains the two legal doctrinal structures: categorical, rule-bound approaches and standards-based approaches List of key references for further reading, allowing readers to extend their knowledge of the topic past the advanced introduction. This Advanced Introduction will be an essential foundational text for students of law, as well as those from a political science background who can view freedom of expression from a legal perspective.

Is academic freedom threatened? The book examines current challenges to academic freedom in Europe, focusing mainly on Italy and Germany. The cases discussed demonstrate that research and teaching are under pressure in European democracies: in Hungary and Poland due to political constraints, in other countries due to societal expectations. Considering different interrelated aspects, the four parts of the book explore many real and potential threats to universities, scientific institutions and researchers, ranging from the European dimension of freedom of the arts and sciences to comparative analysis of emerging challenges to academic freedom against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. They highlight threats to university autonomy from the economic orientation of university governance, which emphasizes efficiency, competition, and external evaluation, and from new rules concerning trigger warnings, speech restrictions, and ethics commissions. Detailed study of these complex threats is intended to stimulate scholarly reflection and elicit serious discussion at European and national level. The volume contributes to the search for a new role of universities and scientific institutions and is addressed to academics and political stakeholders.

This book lays out the foundation of a privacy doctrine suitable to the cyber age. It limits the volume, sensitivity, and secondary analysis that can be carried out. In studying these matters, the book examines the privacy issues raised by the NSA, publication of state secrets, and DNA usage.

This title presents a critical examination of the contemporary debates in Europe and the international community over 'incitement to religious hatred' and the 'defamation of religions'. Today, a new notion of blasphemy has arrived on the international political scene in the form of United Nations resolutions condemning the "defamation of religions" and national laws restricting religiously offensive speech. In the days of Moses, God defended His own honour. In the biblical worldview, blasphemy was the direct verbal abuse of the divine person, punishable by death. For the medievals, it was taken as a threat to civil order. Unlike the biblical and medieval discourse, however, this new debate turns on the feelings of the believers themselves. Meanwhile, artists and public figures face trial for "inciting religious hatred". What is the proper balance between freedom and equal respect for persons? When, if ever, is religious offense not only legally permissible but morally appropriate in a pluralistic democracy? "The Future of Blasphemy" goes beyond the headlines to critically examine the contemporary debates in the international community. It advances a balanced defence of freedom of expression that gives full consideration to the value of equality along with freedom of conscience and religion.

"Religion, Law, and Freedom: A Global Perspective" introduces readers to diverse perspectives on the interplay of religion, law, and communications freedom in different cultures around the world. Through discussion and analysis of the religious mores and cultural values that a nation adheres to, a greater understanding of that nation, its laws, and its freedoms can be cultivated. Rather than suggesting that harmony can be achieved without conflict, the essays in this volume seek to present the reader with a variety of perspectives from which to view and understand the relationships among religion, law, and freedom in various cultures. This multifaceted analysis, therefore, helps readers draw their own conclusions as to the best way to resolve cultural conflict brought about by the growing global community.

The book consists of fifteen chapters, authored or coauthored by 17 international scholars representing China, Germany, Israel, Iran, Japan, Latvia, Nigeria, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The chapters are organized into four parts: "Perspectives on Eastern and Western Religions; Press Freedom in Religious and Secular Societies; Journalism, Advertising, and Ethical Issues;" and "Religion, Politics, Media, and Human Rights." This important contribution will especially appeal to researchers and students in such fields as mass communications, legal studies, cultural studies, political science, religion, intercultural communications, international communications, and journalism.

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. Intolerance in America that targets alleged internal subversives controlled by external agents has a storied history that stretches hundreds of years. While the post-World War II "Red Scare" and the emergence of McCarthyism during the 1950s is the era commonly associated with American anticommunism, there was also a "First Red Scare" that occurred in 1919-1920. In both time periods, many Americans feared the radicalism of the left, and some of the most outspoken-like McCarthy-used slander to denounce their political enemies. The result was an atmosphere in which individual rights and liberties were at risk and hysteria prevailed. McCarthyism and the Red Scare: A Reference Guide tracks the rise and fall of Senator Joe McCarthy and the broad pursuit of domestic "Red" subversives in the post-World War II years, and focuses on how American society responded to real and perceived threats from the left during the first decade of the Cold War. 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

How do we know when one person or society is `freer' than another? Can freedom be measured? Is more freedom better than less? This book provides the first full-length treatment of these fundamental yet neglected issues, throwing new light both on the notion of freedom and on contemporary liberalism.

This resounding defence of the principles of free expression revisits the 'Satanic Verses' uproar of 1989, as well as subsequent incidents such as the Danish cartoons controversy, to argue that the human right of free speech is by no means so secure that it can be taken for granted.

Although Americans tend to take the concept and protection of free expression for granted, free press and free speech are at best only tentatively established in some nations of the world. Covering prehistoric times to mid-1998, this book provides a year-by-year report of the efforts to free the press throughout the world. Since the American concept of free speech came from England, the early chapters place a heavy emphasis on events in England, while later chapters include other nations throughout the world. Ingelhart provides a thorough overview of free press and free speech principles and the continuing effort to extend those freedoms almost everywhere.

This book offers a new theoretical framework for free speech by critically analyzing the major justifications for free speech. Unlike most theories that justify free speech on single grounds, this book argues for a justification; namely the double grounded principled approach; that combines and revises the arguments of equal autonomy and democratic participation at the same time. It claims that a revised and critical blending of these two justifications can serve free speech to be grounded on strong principled arguments. The book has both a theoretical and practical focus: first, it discusses the conceptual circumstances of free speech and major theoretical justifications for free speech and then, it applies the developed theoretical framework to the cases of academic freedom, media freedom and hate speech separately. This volume will appeal to readers who are interested in general free speech theories as well as readers who look for an alternative view on specific topics such as academic freedom, media freedom and hate speech.

The distinctly contemporary proliferation of pornography and hate speech poses a challenge to liberalism's traditional ideal of a 'marketplace of ideas' facilitated by state neutrality about the content of speech. This new study argues that the liberal state ought to depart from neutrality to meet this challenge.

Tracking the relationship between the theory of press control and the realities of practicing daily press censorship prior to publication, this volume on the suppression of dissent in early modern Europe tackles a topic with many elusive and under-researched characteristics. Pre-publication censorship was common in absolutist regimes in Catholic and Protestant countries alike, but how effective it was in practice remains open to debate. The Netherlands and England, where critical content segued into outright lampoonery, were unusual for hard-wired press freedoms that arose, respectively, from a highly competitive publishing industry and highly decentralized political institutions. These nations remained extraordinary exceptions to a rule that, for example in France, did not end until the revolution of 1789. Here, the author's European perspective provides a survey of the varying censorship regulations in European nations, as well as the shifting meanings of 'freedom of the press'. The analysis opens up fascinating insights, afforded by careful reading of primary archival sources, into the reactions of censors confronted with manuscripts by authors seeking permission to publish. Tortarolo sets the opinions on censorship of well-known writers, including Voltaire and Montesquieu, alongside the commentary of anonymous censors, allowing us to revisit some common views of eighteenth-century history. How far did these writers, their reasoning stiffened by Enlightenment values, promote dissident views of absolutist monarchies in Europe, and what insights did governments gain from censors' reports into the social tensions brewing under their rule? These questions will excite dedicated researchers, graduate students, and discerning lay readers alike.

This annotated document collection surveys the history and evolution of laws and attitudes regarding free speech and censorship in the United States, with a special emphasis on contemporary events and controversies related to the First Amendment. The United States' collective understanding of First Amendment freedoms was formed by more than 200 years of tensions between the power of word and the power of the government. During that time, major laws and legal decisions defined the circumstances and degree to which personal expression could be rightfully expressed-and rightfully limited. This struggle to define the parameters of free speech continues today. Vibrant and passionate debates about First Amendment limitations once inspired by the dissemination of birth control information now address such issues as kneeling during the national anthem, removing controversial books from public libraries, attempts by the Trump administration to discredit the press, and disseminating false or hateful information through social media platforms. By exploring diverse examples of censorship victories and triumphs of free expression, readers will better understand the enormous impact of First Amendment freedoms on American society. Chronological history of important milestones, documents, and events that have shaped the nation's understanding of freedom of speech/press and censorship, as well as the limitations of each Primary source selection that illuminates the importance of First Amendment freedoms as critical elements of democracy in the United States Informative, authoritative, and balanced introductory headnotes for each primary source to help readers understand the context in which they were created Readers Guide to Related Documents and sidebars

Zingo examines the conflicts inherent in restricting hate speech--the controversial speech codes--and freedom of expression as it affects the lives and rights of gay men and lesbians. While much has been written on speech code restrictions having to do with race and gender, both in the press and academic literature, few scholars or serious writers before Zingo have focused on the necessity and/or sagacity of instituting legal sanctions on hate speech based on sexual orientation/preference.

After providing an overview of the social and legal condition of outsiders, Zingo examines how the law has evolved on the issues of free speech, equality jurisprudence, and the hate speech controversy. She then analyzes these issues in the context of sexual identity, equality, and non-discrimination and concludes with a review of the Supreme Court's rulings on hate speech regulation. Throughout she discusses the extent to which such speech codes adequately protect lesbians and gay men in American society. A major study for students and scholars of Constitutional Law and policymakers and others concerned with gay and lesbian issues and free speech.

Freedom of speech is a tradition distinctive to American political culture, and this book focuses on the major debates and discourses that shaped this tradition. Today the American Bill of Rights, with its famous First Amendment, is generally taken for granted, but when James Madison proposed a Bill of Rights in 1789, the reaction among his colleagues in the first Congress was hostile. The book examines how Madison was able to prevail in spite of such opposition. It focuses on discourses connected to the Sedition Act of 1798, which represented a serious threat to freedom of speech and the first Amendment. The author sheds fresh light on key Congressional debates on the Bill of Rights and the Sedition Act by developing and applying an approach to fallacy theory that is suitable to the study of political discourse. He further focuses on criticism of the Madison administration in Federalist newspapers during the War of 1812, arguing that Madison's toleration of such criticism was important in shaping a tradition of free expression in the United States. Efforts to suppress free expression during the Wilson administration represented a serious challenge to this tradition, and the author goes on to employ fallacy theory in examining Congressional discourses for and against Wilson's policy of repression.

How far does the idea of academic freedom extend to professors in an era of racial reckoning? The protests of summer 2020, which were ignited by the murder of George Floyd, led to long-overdue reassessments of the legacy of racism and white supremacy in both American academe and cultural life more generally. But while universities have been willing to rename some buildings and schools or grapple with their role in the slave trade, no one has yet asked the most uncomfortable question: Does academic freedom extend to racist professors? It's Not Free Speech considers the ideal of academic freedom in the wake of the activism inspired by outrageous police brutality, white supremacy, and the #MeToo movement. Arguing that academic freedom must be rigorously distinguished from freedom of speech, Michael Berube and Jennifer Ruth take aim at explicit defenses of colonialism and theories of white supremacy-theories that have no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever. Approaching this question from two angles-one, the question of when a professor's intramural or extramural speech calls into question his or her fitness to serve, and two, the question of how to manage the simmering tension between the academic freedom of faculty and the antidiscrimination initiatives of campus offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion-they argue that the democracy-destroying potential of social media makes it very difficult to uphold the traditional liberal view that the best remedy for hate speech is more speech. In recent years, those with traditional liberal ideals have had very limited effectiveness in responding to the resurgence of white supremacism in American life. It is time, Berube and Ruth write, to ask whether that resurgence requires us to rethink the parameters and practices of academic freedom. Touching as well on contingent faculty, whose speech is often inadequately protected, It's Not Free Speech insists that we reimagine shared governance to augment both academic freedom and antidiscrimination initiatives on campuses. Faculty across the nation can develop protocols that account for both the new realities-from the rise of social media to the decline of tenure-and the old realities of long-standing inequities and abuses that the classic liberal conception of academic freedom did nothing to address. This book will resonate for anyone who has followed debates over #MeToo, Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, and "cancel culture"; more specifically, it should have a major impact on many facets of academic life, from the classroom to faculty senates to the office of the general counsel.

The Soviet collapse of 1991 - the Great August liberation - demonstrated the total exhaustion of Marxist Leninist agitation and propaganda. It was no longer possible to live on slogans. The failure of Soviet agitprop is also the failure of Soviet censorship the latter being a unique institution in anti-thought. This volume analyzes the consequences of censorship, before tackling the media legislation of the Russian Federation and the dangers to the free flow of information emerging both within and outside the Russian Federation.

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.

This book addresses the question: "What should be the appropriate limits to free speech?" The author claims that it is the state, rather than abstract principles, that must provide the answer. The book defends a version of Hobbesian absolutism and rejects the dominant liberal idea that there is a right (human or civil) setting the boundaries of free speech. This liberal view can be known as the "principled defence of free speech", in which speech is established as a constitutional principle that has priority over the state. The author instead offers an "unprincipled approach to free speech", suggesting that the boundaries of speech must necessarily be set by the state, which in liberal democracies means through social and political contestation. The final chapter applies the argument to the topic of hate speech and argues that it is appropriate to limit such speech when it causes harm and offense. The book will be of use to students and scholars across political theory, political science, sociology, philosophy and law.

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.

Whilst paying lip service to the importance of public access to court proceedings and its corollary of unfettered media reporting,a trawl through common law jurisdictions reveals that judges and legislators have been responsible for substantial inroads into the ideal of open justice. Outside of the US, judges and legislators have long subordinated media freedom to report and comment upon matters relating to the administration of justice in order to safeguard the fairness of individual proceedings, public confidence in the administration of justice more generally or even individual privacy concerns. The subject matter of this book is a comparative treatment of constitutional protection for open justice. Focusing on developments in the legal systems of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia, the monograph draws upon the constitutionalization of expression interests across the common law world to engage in a much needed re-assessment of the basis and extent of permissible restraints on speech.

Freedom of speech is a foundational principle of the American Constitutional system. This collection of over 100 primary documents from a variety of sources will help students understand exactly what is meant by "free speech," and how it has evolved since the founding of our country. Court cases, opinion pieces, and many other documents bring to life the tension between America's constitutional commitment to robust and unrestrained discourse and recurring efforts to suppress expression deemed dangerous, degrading or obscene. Explanatory introductions to each document aid users in understanding the various arguments put forth in debates over exactly how to define the Constitution to encourage readers to consider all sides when drawing their own conclusions. Relying heavily on Supreme Court precedents that have shaped First Amendment law, the volume also provides plenty of carefully selected source materials chosen to reflect the culture of the times, allowing the reader to better understand the climate giving rise to each controversy. The introductory and explanatory text help readers understand the nature of the conflicts, the issues being litigated, the social and cultural pressures that shaped each debate, and the manner in which the composition of the Supreme Court and the passions of the individual Justices affected the development of the law. This welcome resource will provide students with the opportunity to explore the philosophy of the First Amendment's Free Speech provisions and to understand how our historic commitment to freedom of expression has fared at various times in our history.

This book uniquely depicts the preeminent role that African trade unions played in ousting dictatorships and bringing democracy to many African countries in the 1990s. In the analytical introduction and case studies of major African countries, leading scholars relate how democratic trade unions were critical in launching and sustaining democratization. Working with other societal groups and parties, unions continue to represent the popular classes and invigorate democratic life in these otherwise elite-dominated countries.

"A very readable book containing the best arguments thus far opposing campaign finance reform."
-- "Choice"

"Martin Redish's accomplishment is that he not only has written a strong critique of te proposals to extend governmental regulation of free speech, but he has also given First Amendment defenders a base from which to attack existing restrictions on communication. Money Talks illustrates and upholds why the Founders prohibited Congress from making any law thta abridges the freedom of speech."--"Regulation"

Many have argued that soft money and special interests are destroying the American electoral system. And yet the clarion call for campaign finance reform only touches on the more general belief that money and economic power have a disastrous impact on both free expression and American democracy. The nation's primary sources of communication, the argument goes, are increasingly controlled by vast corporate empires whose primary, or even exclusive motive is the maximization of profit. And these conglomerates should simply not be granted the same constitutional protection as, say, an individual protester.

And yet neither the expenditure of money for expressive purposes nor an underlying motive of profit maximization detracts from the values fostered by such activity, claims Martin H. Redish. In fact, given the modern economic realities that dictate that effective expression virtually requires the expenditure of capital, any restriction of such capital for expressive purposes will necessarily reduce the sum total of available expression. Further, Redish here illustrates, the underlying motive of those who wish to restrict corporate expression is disagreement with thenature of the views they express.

Confronting head-on one of the sacred cows of American reformist politics, Martin H. Redish here once again lives up to his reputation as one of America's most original and counterintuitive legal minds.