|
Showing 1 - 25 of
32 matches in All Departments
A broad explanation of the various dimensions of the problem of
"bad" speech on the internet within the American context. One of
the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about
"bad" speech-hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns,
and incitement of violence-on the internet, and in particular
speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In
Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy,
Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent
cast of contributors-including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Newt Minow, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily
Bazelon, and others-to explore the various dimensions of this
problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to
develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are
ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone
argue that it is important to remember that the last time we
encountered major new communications technology-television and
radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to
issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest."
Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading
experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new
insights for the future of free speech in the social media era.
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has
won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of
the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is
an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and
interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume
features prominent scholars assessing major legal events,
including: Mark Tushnet on President Trump's "Muslim Ban" Kate
Andrias on Union Fees in the Public Sector Cass R. Sunstein on
Chevron without Chevron Tracey Maclin on the Fourth Amendment and
Unauthorized Drivers Frederick Schauer on Precedent Pamela Karlan
on Gay Equality and Racial Equality Randall Kennedy on Palmer v.
Thompson Lisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter on Voter
Suppression Melissa Murray on Masterpiece Cakeshop Vikram David
Amar on Commandeering Laura K. Donohue on Carpenter, Precedent, and
Originalism Evan Caminker on Carpenter and Stability
Lauded for "bringing a bracing and much-needed dose of reality
about the Founders' views of sexuality" (New York Review of Books),
Geoffrey R. Stone's Sex and the Constitution traces the evolution
of legal and moral codes that have legislated sexual behavior from
America's earliest days to today's fractious political climate.
This "fascinating and maddening" (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
narrative shows how agitators, moralists, and, especially, the
justices of the Supreme Court have navigated issues as divisive as
abortion, homosexuality, pornography, and contraception.
Overturning a raft of contemporary shibboleths, Stone reveals that
at the time the Constitution was adopted there were no laws against
obscenity or abortion before the midpoint of pregnancy. A pageant
of historical characters, including Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson,
Anthony Comstock, Margaret Sanger, and Justice Anthony Kennedy,
enliven this "commanding synthesis of scholarship" (Publishers
Weekly) that dramatically reveals how our laws about sex, religion,
and morality reflect the cultural schisms that have cleaved our
nation from its founding.
The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States
is one of the most important free speech cases in American history.
Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for saying that
'shouting fire in a crowded theater' is not protected by the First
Amendment. The case itself upheld an espionage conviction, but it
also created a much stricter standard for governmental suppression
of speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of
speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The
Free Speech Century, two of American's leading First Amendment
scholars, Geoffrey Stone and Lee Bollinger, have gathered a group
of the nation's leading legal scholars (Cass Sunstein, Lawrence
Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, and
others) to evaluate the development of free speech doctrine since
Schenk and assess where it might be headed in our post-Snowden era.
Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a
signal development in the history of constitutional
democracies-remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement,
remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption
of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection
for free expression it has afforded since the 1960s. Since 1919,
the degree of judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has
grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech
laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is
always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, heightened
political sensitivities, and new technologies of communication
continually reshape our understanding of what sort of speech should
be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the
decision that established free speech as we have come to understand
it today, The Free Speech Century will serve as essential overview
for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First
Amendment transformed over time and why it continues to change to
this day.
From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl
Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American
constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws
forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded
the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school
prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a
crime must be given a lawyer even if they can't afford one. Yet,
despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have
fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their
authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.
As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A.
Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court's
approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic
values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental
responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describer the
Warren Court's extraordinary achievements by reviewing its
jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation's
commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each
chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the
historical and legal context of each case, the Court's reasoning,
and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court's most
important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of
the Warren Court's legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary
of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the
Warren Court's achievements against almost sixty-five years of
unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It
demonstrates not only why the Warren Court's approach to
constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also
why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of
the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the
Supreme Court over the past half-century.
For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim
for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme
Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court
and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms,
and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has
won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of
the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is
an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and
interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume
features incisive assessments of major legal events, including:
Gillian E. Metzger on The Roberts Court's Administrative Law Paul
Butler on Peremptory Strikes in Mississippi v. Flowers Nicholas O.
Stephanopoulos on Partisan Gerrymandering Kent Greenfield on Hate
Speech Jennifer M. Chacon on Department of Commerce v. New York
Micah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe on Establishment Clause
Appeasement William Baude on Precedent and Originalism Linda
Greenhouse on The Supreme Court's Challenge to Civil Society James
T. Kloppenberg on James Madison
While freedom of speech has been guaranteed us for centuries, the
First Amendment as we know it today is largely a creation of the
past eighty years. "Eternally Vigilant" brings together a group of
distinguished legal scholars to reflect boldly on its past, its
present shape, and what forms our understanding of it might take in
the future.
Contributors:
Lillian R. BeVier
Vincent Blasi
Lee C. Bollinger
Stanley Fish
Owen M. Fiss
R. Kent Greenawalt
Richard A. Posner
Robert C. Post
Frederick Schauer
Geoffrey R. Stone
David A. Strauss
Cass R. Sunstein
"We cannot discount the risk, in light of the lessons of our own
history, that at some point in the future, high-level government
officials will decide that this massive database of extraordinarily
sensitive private information is there for the plucking. Americans
must never make the mistake of wholly 'trusting' our public
officials."--The NSA Report This is the official report that is
helping shape the international debate about the unprecedented
surveillance activities of the National Security Agency.
Commissioned by President Obama following disclosures by former NSA
contractor Edward J. Snowden, and written by a preeminent group of
intelligence and legal experts, the report examines the extent of
NSA programs and calls for dozens of urgent and practical reforms.
The result is a blueprint showing how the government can reaffirm
its commitment to privacy and civil liberties--without compromising
national security.
For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim
for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme
Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court
and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms,
and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has
won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of
the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is
an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and
interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal
academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians,
economists, policy planners, and sociologists. This year's volume
features incisive assessments of major legal events, including:
Cristina M. Rodriguez on the Political Significance of Law Martha
Minow on Little Sisters of the Poor Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian
Vermeule on the Unitary Executive Cary Franklin on Living
Textualism David A. Strauss on Sexual Orientation and the Dynamics
of Discrimination Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash on the Executive's
Privileges and Immunities Reva B. Siegel on Abortion Restrictions
Maggie Blackhawk on McGirt v. Oklahoma Richard J. Lazarus on
Advocacy History
For forty-eight years, "The Supreme Court Review "has been
lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most
significant decisions. The" Review" is an in-depth annual critique
of the Supreme Court and its work, at the forefront of studies of
the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent
volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential
election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the
"United States v. American Library Association "case, failed
Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment
cases.
A timely defense of affirmative action policies that offers a more
nuanced understanding of how centuries of invidious racism,
discrimination, and segregation in the United States led to and
justifies such policies from both a moral and constitutional
perspective. Since 1961, the issue of "affirmative action" has been
a hotly contested legal and political issue. Intended to address
our nation's often horrifying discrimination against Black
Americans and other minorities, affirmative action has led over the
past sixty years to far greater minority representation across a
vast range of industries, government positions, and academic
institutions. Nonetheless, affirmative action policies in the
United States continue to fall under assault. In A Legacy of
Discrimination, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, two of
America's leading constitutional scholars, trace the policy's
history and the legal challenges it has faced over the decades.
They argue that in order to fully comprehend affirmative action's
original intent and impact, we must re-acquaint ourselves with the
era in which it arose, beginning with the most important Supreme
Court decision of the 20th century, 1954's Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, Kansas. Assessing this history, Bollinger and
Stone introduce subsequent, and evolving, affirmative-action case
law that had the intent and effect of constraining social,
educational, and economic progress for Black people and other
minority groups. They demonstrate how and why affirmative action
policies stand on firm legal ground and must remain protected.
Further, they explain why Americans must view affirmative action as
a long-term moral commitment to secure justice, especially for
Black Americans, after three and a half centuries of grave
injustice that violates the most essential aspirations of our
nation. A timely and robust overview of the history of our nation's
historical and continuing racial discrimination and of the advent
of affirmative action as a critical means to address this history,
this book will serve as a powerful defense of a policy that has
accomplished more than most people realize in making America a
fairer and more inclusive country.
Winner of eight national awards for his magisterial work "Perilous
Times," Geoffrey R. Stone has now created a condensed, updated, and
more accessible history of civil liberties in wartime. With an
in-depth examination of how our constitutional rights have fared
during the presidency of George W. Bush, Stone reveals how the
federal government has suppressed civil liberties in times of war
throughout American history. A sparkling historical narrative, "War
and Liberty" is the perfect book for any reader who wants to
understand the current national debate and assess the state of our
freedoms.
The latest volume in the Supreme Court Review series. Since it
first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim
for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an
in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work,
analyzing the origins, reforms, and modern interpretations of
American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges,
political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy
planners, and sociologists.
"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticisms of
recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--Ethics
Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting
of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social
scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and
present opinions and discusses important public law issues that
have come under Court consideration.
Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual
essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on
RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present
danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and
Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad
journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H.
Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first
amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the
preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner
Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual
essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on
RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present
danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and
Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad
journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H.
Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first
amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the
preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner
Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
Since its inception in 1960, "The Supreme Court Review" has been
lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most
significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such
as the 2000 elections in Florida, Federalism and state sovereignty,
the Boerne v. Flores case, and numerous Fourth Amendment issues.
Distinguished participants analyze current and previous public
issues, sentiments, and the implications of Court decisions.
Since it first appeared in 1960, the "Supreme Court Review" has won
acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the
implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual
essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on
RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present
danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and
Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad
journalism; Paul Finkelman on "Prigg v. Pennsylvania"; Richard H.
Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first
amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the
preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner
Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.
Which Question? Which Lie? Reflections on the Physician-Assisted
Suicide Cases Martha MinowThe Value of Seeing Things Differently:
Boerne v Flores and Congressional Enforcement of the Bill of Rights
David ColeCongressional Power and Religious Liberty after City of
Boerne v Flores Christopher L. Eisgruber, Lawrence G. Sager.Freedom
of Speech, Shielding Children, and Transcending Balancing Eugene
VolokhPrintz, State Sovereignty, and the Limits of Formalism Evan
H. CaminkerO'Hagan's Problems Victor BrudneyTraffic Stops, Minority
Motorists, and the Future of the Fourth Amendment David A.
SklanskyEntrenching the Duopoly: Why the Supreme Court Should not
Allow the States to Protect the Democrats and Republicans from
Political Competition Richard L. Hasen"The Ideal New Frontier
Judge" Dennis J. HutchinsonThe Court and the Corporation:
Jurisprudence, Localism, and Federalism Gregory A. MarkDo not Go
Gently into that Good Right: the First Amendment in the High Court
of Australia Gerald N. Rosenberg, John M. Williams.
"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticism of
recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."--"Ethics"
"The Supreme Court Review" keeps you at the forefront of the
Court's most significant decisions by surveying its origins,
reforms, and interpretations of American law and compelling you to
consider the impacts of legal institutions and judicial opinion.
Diverse essays of informed analyses of past and present opinions
document the complexities of the Court and relevant public law
issues. Legal scholars, lawyers, judges, historians, political
scientists, economists, and journalists have won acclaim for their
contributions to each volume.
"The Supreme Court Review" receives accolades for providing
authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions
and their resonating impacts. Recent scholarship addresses school
vouchers via Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Federalism and state
sovereignty, the current state of political parties, and judicial
passivity. Distinguished participants across the field of Law
analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and
implications addressed under Court consideration.
|
|