A commitment to free speech is a fundamental precept of all liberal democracies. However, democracies can differ significantly when addressing the constitutionality of laws regulating certain kinds of speech. In the United States, for instance, the commitment to free speech under the First Amendment has been held by the Supreme Court to protect the public expression of the most noxious racist ideology and hence to render unconstitutional even narrow restrictions on hate speech. In contrast, governments have been accorded considerable leeway to restrict racist and other extreme expression in almost every other democracy, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and other European countries. This book considers the legal responses of various liberal democracies towards hate speech and other forms of extreme expression, and examines the following questions:
What accounts for the marked differences in attitude towards the constitutionality of hate speech regulation?
Does hate speech regulation violate the core free speech principle constitutive of democracy?
Has the traditional US position on extreme expression justifiably not found favor elsewhere?
Do values such as the commitment to equality or dignity legitimately override the right to free speech in some circumstances?
With contributions from experts in a range of disciplines, this book offers an in-depth examination of the tensions that arise between democracy's promises.
Readership Academics, scholars, and advanced students of Human Rights; Comparative Human Rights; Freedom of Information & Freedom of Speech; Media, Information, & Communication Industries; Censorship; Extreme Speech & Hate Speech

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.

Written by a team of leading scholars and practitioners in the fields of copyright and free speech, this work analyses the potential for interaction and conflict between the two rights. Free speech is the lifeblood of any democracy. As John Stuart Mill stated, "In government, perfect freedom of discussion in all its modes - speaking, writing, and printing - in law and in fact is the first requisite of good because the first condition of popular intelligence and mental progress." (Letter by John Stuart Mill, 18 March, 1840) Copyright, on the other hand, represent a property regime which protects human creativity as manifested in all types of expressions such as literary works, paintings and music. Both these notions, copyright and free speech, are united in the fact of their recognition as fundamental freedoms of all individuals within the national, regional and international framework of human rights. However, the rights are also antithetical in nature, giving rise to both political and jurisprudential tensions. These tensions have become recently accentuated by the advent of legislative developments. Both in the United States and within the European Union, legal commentators argue that recent copyright legislation has paid insufficient regard to free speech. This concern is underlined by the series of First Amendment challenges that have been brought against the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The recent causes celebres not only highlight the antagonistic relationship between copyright and free speech but also prominently depict the potential conflict between public and private interests in information - the Dead Sea Scrolls decision (Israel), the Wind Done Gone, Eldred and DeCSS cases (United States) and the Hyde Park v Yelland and Ashdown v Telegraph Group (United Kingdom). A further query which requires attention is the impact of the growing significance of international copyright law for the developing world. The raised profile of these conflicts has resulted in an increasing amount of attention from academe and the legal profession. Some of the authors of this volume have made influential contributions and are directly involved, both legally and politically, in the debate. There has, however, been no sustained study of the conflict across a variety of different jurisdictions. This book addresses the copyright/free speech relationship within a comparative and international legal framework. Moreover, the key questions regarding access to information and the digital challenges are addressed from both theoretical and practical perspectives.

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.

Describes landmark free speech decisions of the Supreme Court while highlighting the issues of language, rhetoric, and communication that underlie them.

At the intersection of communication and First Amendment law reside two significant questions: What is the speech we ought to protect, and why should we protect it? The 20 scholars of legal communication whose essays are gathered in this volume propose various answers to these questions, but their essays share an abiding concern with a constitutional guarantee of free speech and its symbiotic relationship with communication practices.

"Free Speech on Trial" fills a gap between textbooks that summarize First Amendment law and books that analyze case law and legal theory. These essays explore questions regarding the significance of unregulated speech in a marketplace of goods and ideas, the limits of offensive language and obscenity as expression, the power of symbols, and consequences of restraint prior to publication versus the subsequent punishment of sources. As one example, Craig Smith cites "Buckley vs. Valeo" to examine how the context of corruption in the 1974 elections shaped the Court's view of the constitutionality of campaign contributions and expenditures.

Collectively, the essays in this volume suggest that the life of free speech law is communication. The contributors reveal how the Court's free speech opinions constitute discursive performances that fashion, deconstruct, and reformulate the contours and parameters of the Constitution's guarantee of free expression and that, ultimately, reconstitute our government, our culture, and our society.

This is a new study of the employment law implications for employees who exercise the right to free speech. The book examines the philosophical basis for protecting free speech, the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and article 10 of the ECHR, the implications of free speech for the contract of employment, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, and the special position of local government and NHS staff and civil servants.

On Monday, May 4, 1970, members of the Ohio National Guard, called onto the Kent State University campus to quell antiwar demonstrations, fired 61 rounds into a group of students protesting the U.S. invasion of Cambodia and Guard presence on campus. Thirteen seconds later, four students lay dead and nine were wounded. After decades of controversy surrounding the May 4 commemoration, the University moved in a new direction, choosing to use the 30th anniversary as an opportunity to recognize the past and embrace the future. A major component of this was the establishment of an annual scholarly symposium to focus on the great issues of American democracy. The Boundaries of Freedom of Expression and Order in American Democracy is the product of the first symposium, which explored the limits of freedom of expression in American society as they apply to business, education, media, law, politics, the Internet, and other venues. The contributions to this book represent an impressive range of incisive analyses and commentary by leading First Amendment scholars, including the symposium's keynote speakers: Kathleen Sullivan, Dean of Stanford Law School; Anthony Lewis, two-time Pulitzer Prizewinning columnist of the New York Times and the author of two major First Amendment books; and Cass Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn, Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School.

This volume deals with vital issues on freedom of expression and freedom of information and emphasizes the importance of the free exchange and dissemination of ideas and of open, and therefore more accountable, government. It notes the ways in which these freedoms have received recent legislative attention in the Human Rights Act 1998, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Bill.

The government is hiding information from its citizens-or so most Americans believe. While even some members of Congress now call for greater access to classified documents, federal agencies continue to withhold a massive amount of information in the name of national security, maintaining a culture of secrecy rooted in the Cold War.

This new book examines who in government is hiding what from the rest of us, how they're doing it, and why it should matter to all of us. Contributing scholars, journalists, and attorneys survey the policies of federal intelligence agencies and presidents-notably Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton-to keep information secret. They show how these agencies have gone far beyond legitimate security needs to withhold information, and they describe the frustrations and costs encountered in their own efforts to obtain classified information.

The authors review important cases exemplifying State Department, agency, and presidential efforts to withhold, destroy, or delay release of these records. In chapters centering on the Kennedy assassination, the Nixon tapes, and the FBI's files on John Lennon and the Supreme Court justices, readers will find an abundance of startling and disturbing revelations. By citing some of the methods used by agencies like the CIA, NSA, NSC, and FBI to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act-often with the cooperation of the judicial system-these essays clearly show that abuses of secrecy aren't limited to the withholding of information but extend to the absurd lengths taken to avoid disclosure.

With the Cold War over and in the wake of challenges to the status quo from the Moynihan Commission, A Culture of Secrecy is particularly timely reading for a concerned public. Its cases will instruct others seeking access to classified material, and its exposure of government practices may lead to greater openness that will facilitate historical research and guarantee the public's right to know.

This book contains the oral testimony of victims of pornography, spoken on the record for the first time in history.

Speaking at hearings on a groundbreaking antipornography civil rights law, women offer eloquent witness to the devastation pornography has caused in their lives. Supported by social science experts and authorities on rape, battery, and prostitution, discounted and opposed by free speech advocates and absolutists, their riveting testimony articulates the centrality of pornography to sexual abuse and inequity today.

At issue in these hearings is a law conceived and drafted by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine A. MacKinnon that defines harm done through pornography as a legal injury of sex discrimination warranting civil redress. From the first set of hearings in Minneapolis in 1983 through those before the Massachusetts state legislature in 1992, the witnesses heard here expose the commonplace reality of denigration and sexual subordination due to pornography and refute the widespread notion that pornography is harmless expression that must be protected by the state.

Introduced with powerful essays by MacKinnon and Dworkin, these hearings--unabridged and with each word scrupulously verified--constitute a unique record of a conflict over the meaning of democracy itself--a major civil rights struggle for our time and a fundamental crisis in United States constitutional law: Can we sacrifice the lives of women and children to a pornographer's right to free "speech"? Can we allow the First Amendment to shield sexual exploitation and predatory sexual violence? These pages contain all the arguments for protecting pornography--and dramatically document its human cost.

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.

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.

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

Following the dramatic events of July 2016, the global spotlight has fallen on Turkey's increasingly authoritarian government, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. International observers fear the attempted coup has given Erdogan, already known for his attacks on press freedom, an excuse to further suppress all opposition.In November 2015, Can Dundar, editor-in-chief of the national Cumhuriyet newspaper, was arrested on charges of espionage, helping a terrorist organisation, trying to topple the government and revealing state secrets. His transgression? Publishing photographic evidence of a highly illegal covert arms shipment by the Turkish secret service to radical Islamist organisations fighting government forces in Syria - a crime that was in the government's interest to conceal, and a journalist's duty to expose.Arraigned by the President himself, who called for Dundar to receive two life sentences, he was held in solitary confinement in Turkey's Silivri Prison for three months while awaiting trial.We Are Arrested is Dundar's enthralling account of the newspaper's decision to publish and the events that unfolded as a result - including would-be suicide bombings, assassination attempts and fierce attacks from pro-government media - as well as the time he served behind bars for defending the public's right to know.

Governments throughout history have struggled to define the boundaries of the right to freedom of speech. Even though the United States explicitly articulates freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the judicial branch frequently reinterprets the amendment by allowing laws to limit that freedom. In Reflections on Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment, noted legal theorist George Anastaplo details the history and intellectual foundations of freedom of speech, using examples from Socrates, Jesus, and Sir Thomas More to demonstrate how freedom of speech has evolved over centuries. Anastaplo pays particular attention to freedom of speech as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, and he describes potential First Amendment issues, such as cases involving the Internet. Anastaplo provides an in-depth look at a controversial issue, and he defines freedom of speech in precise terms for both scholars and those interested in one of our most cherished rights.

The feminist campaign against pornography, the furore over a racial epithet in the O.J. Simpson trial, and Iran's continuing threat to kill Salman Rushdie exemplify the intense passions aroused by hurtful speech. In this study Richard Abel offers an original framework for understanding and attempting to resolve these pervasive and intractable conflicts. Drawing on sociological theories of symbollic politics, he views such confrontations as struggles for respect among status categories defined by nationality, religion, race gender, sexual orientation and physical difference. The text seeks to expose the inadequacies of the conventional responses to speech: absolutist civil libertarianism and enthusiastic state regulation. Instead the author argues that only apologies exchanged within the communities that construct collective identities can readjust social standing damaged by hurtful words and images. Abel recasts the problem in terms of equalizing cultural capital and aims to open a new pathway through the wrongs and rights of speech.

Governments throughout history have struggled to define the boundaries of the right to freedom of speech. Even though the United States explicitly articulates freedom of speech in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the judicial branch frequently reinterprets the amendment by allowing laws to limit that freedom. In Reflections on Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment, noted legal theorist George Anastaplo details the history and intellectual foundations of freedom of speech, using examples from Socrates, Jesus, and Sir Thomas More to demonstrate how freedom of speech has evolved over centuries. Anastaplo pays particular attention to freedom of speech as it relates to the U.S. Constitution, and he describes potential First Amendment issues, such as cases involving the Internet. Anastaplo provides an in-depth look at a controversial issue, and he defines freedom of speech in precise terms for both scholars and those interested in one of our most cherished rights.

The consequences of governmental reform are not always intended. In this book, the author examines how federal management reforms associated with the National Performance Review have affected, and are still affecting, implementation of the Freedom of Information Act.

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.

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.

"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"
"In "The Reconstruction of Patriotism, " Morris Janowitz . . . places a national-service program on the national agenda. . . . Like William James, Janowitz envisions government enrolling young people to work for a year or two at subsistence pay, doing jobs that benefit society--working with, say, 'conservation, health, or old-age problems.' He believes that we need a service program because since the end of the Second World War our citizens (and, indeed, citizens of almost all the advanced industrial nations) have become more keenly aware of their rights than of their obligations, and generations are growing up with little or no understanding that they are members of a national community and have responsibilities to it--that they must give as well as take. . . . Because it reopens discussion of our wider obligations and how to fulfill them, Mr. Janowitz's thoughtful book is in itself a national service."--Naomi Bliven, "The New Yorker"

"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"

How free is the speech of someone who can't be heard? Not very--and this, Owen Fiss suggests, is where the First Amendment comes in. In this book, a marvel of conciseness and eloquence, Fiss reframes the debate over free speech to reflect the First Amendment's role in ensuring public debate that is, in Justice William Brennan's words, truly "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." Hate speech, pornography, campaign spending, funding for the arts: the heated, often overheated, struggle over these issues generally pits liberty, as embodied in the First Amendment, against equality, as in the Fourteenth. Fiss presents a democratic view of the First Amendment that transcends this opposition. If equal participation is a precondition of free and open public debate, then the First Amendment encompasses the values of both equality and liberty. By examining the silencing effects of speech--its power to overwhelm and intimidate the underfunded, underrepresented, or disadvantaged voice--Fiss shows how restrictions on political expenditures, hate speech, and pornography can be defended in terms of the First Amendment, not despite it. Similarly, when the state requires the media to air voices of opposition, or funds art that presents controversial or challenging points of view, it is doing its constitutional part to protect democratic self-rule from the aggregations of private power that threaten it. Where most liberal accounts cast the state as the enemy of freedom and the First Amendment as a restraint, this one reminds us that the state can also be the friend of freedom, protecting and fostering speech that might otherwise die unheard, depriving our democracy of the full range and richness of its expression.

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.

The power and status of the press in America reached new heights after spectacular reporting triumphs in the segregated South, in Vietnam, and in Washington during the Watergate years. Then new technologies created instantaneous global reporting which left the government unable to control the flow of information to the nation. The press thus became a formidable rival in critical struggles to control what the people know and when they know it. But that was more power than the press could handle--and journalism crashed toward new lows in public esteem and public purpose. The dazzling new technologies, profit-driven owners, and celebrated editors, reporters, and broadcasters made it possible to bypass older values and standards of journalism. Journalists reveled in lusty pursuit after the power of politics, the profits of entertainment and trespass into privacy. Richard Reeves was there at the rise and at the fall, beginning as a small-town editor, becoming the chief political correspondent of the New York Times and then a best-selling author and award-winning documentary filmmaker. He tells the story of a tribe that lost its way. From the Pony Express to the Internet, he chronicles what happened to the press as America accelerated into uncertainty, arguing that to survive, the press must go back to doing what it was hired to do long ago: stand as outsiders watching government and politics on behalf of a free people busy with their own affairs.