Does American free speech doctrine discriminate against women and minorities? In Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine, James Weinstein carefully examines the charge that in interpreting the First Amendment as protecting hate speech and pornography while allowing myriad other exceptions to free speech, American co
Does American free speech doctrine discriminate against women and minorities? In Hate Speech, Pornography, and the Radical Attack on Free Speech Doctrine, James Weinstein carefully examines the charge that in interpreting the First Amendment as protecting hate speech and pornography while allowing myriad other exceptions to free speech, American courts have privileged the interests of the rich and powerful over the interests of women and people of color. The author concludes that while free speech doctrine is not in any deep sense as neutral as some of its apologists believe, the claim that free speech decisions and principles systematically discriminate against women and minorities does not withstand scrutiny. He shows that this claim of discrimination is based upon a profound but widely shared misunderstanding of the actual workings of free speech doctrine.In order to expose this misunderstanding, the first section of the book thoroughly explores the basic cases and principles upon which free speech doctrine is built. The second section demonstrates that the relationship between free speech and equality is far more complex than either radical critics or many liberal defenders of doctrine suppose. The third section considers the cost and benefits of modifying free speech doctrine to allow for the suppression of hate speech and pornography. After reviewing the experience of hate speech and pornography in other democracies, Weinstein concludes that while such a modification would not lead straight to totalitarianism as alarmist defenders of current doctrine contend, it would nonetheless likely inhibit legitimate debate and artistic expression. Also contrary to dogmatic defenders of current doctrine, the author concludes that although the scientific evidence that pornography causes violence to women is not nearly as conclusive as radical feminists assert, this evidence is nonetheless cause for concern.While offering a scholarly analysis of the radical critique of free speech doctrine, this book has even larger ambition: to provide nonlawyers with the background to participate knowledgeably in the continuing debate about the role of free speech in a democratic society.
This book, devoted to acquainting reader with the basics of American free speech doctrine, presents a description of the radical attack on modern free speech doctrine. It discusses whether banning this speech would be a remedy for the harms hate speech and pornography are said to cause.
In Must We Defend Nazis?, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic set out to liberate speech from its current straight-jacket. Over the past hundred years, almost all of American law has matured from the mechanical jurisprudence approach--which held that cases could be solved on the basis of legal rules and logic alone--to that of legal realism--which maintains that legal reasoning must also take into account social policy, common sense, and experience. But in the area of free speech, the authors argue, such archaic formulas as the prohibition against content regulation, the maxim that the cure for bad speech is more speech, and the speech/act distinction continue to reign, creating a system which fails to take account of the harms speech can cause to disempowered, marginalized people. Focusing on the issues of hate-speech and pornography, this volume examines the efforts of reformers to oblige society and law to take account of such harms. It contends that the values of free expression and equal dignity stand in reciprocal relation. Speech in any sort of meaningful sense requires equal dignity, equal access, and equal respect on the parts of all of the speakers in a dialogue; free speech, in other words, presupposes equality. The authors argue for a system of free speech which takes into account nuance, context-sensitivity, and competing values such as human dignity and equal protection of the law.
The contributors to this volume consider whether it is possible to establish carefully tailored hate speech policies that are cognizant of the varying traditions, histories and values of different countries. Throughout, there is a strong comparative emphasis, with examples (and authors) drawn from around the world. All the authors explore whether or when different cultural and historical settings justify different substantive rules given that such cultural relativism can be used to justify content-based restrictions and so endanger freedom of expression. Essays address the following questions, among others: is hate speech in fact so dangerous or harmful to vulnerable minorities or communities as to justify a lower standard of constitutional protection? What harms and benefits accrue from laws that criminalize hate speech in particular contexts? Are there circumstances in which everyone would agree that hate speech should be criminally punished? What lessons can be learned from international case law?
A powerful indictment of contemporary attacks on free speech, this book argues for a vigorous First Amendment jurisprudence protecting even offensive types of speech. In recent years, political activists, academics, and legal specialists have attacked traditional notions of free speech protection as they concern hate speech, obscenity, and pornography. They have called for changes in Supreme Court doctrine in defining the First Amendment and have argued that the traditional view of free speech actually creates and perpetuates a society in which the weak--women, minorities, the poor--have no voice. While recognizing their fears, Nicholas Wolfson argues that it is impossible to separate bad speech from good speech without fatally compromising the uniquely American concept of free speech, and that efforts to modify our concept of free speech for a greater egalitarian good can only result in undue state influence over private speech. In a keenly argued analysis, he finds that, in the end, the preservation of free and vigorous speech requires a strong First Amendment protection for even the most hateful of 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.
For more than half a century, the field of Canadian Studies has attracted North American scholars of the highest caliber to examine Canada: its distinctive social makeup, its fascinating colonial and postcolonial history, its intriguing literature, its political structure, and its changing place in the world. Scholars, Missionaries, and Counter-Imperialists: The American Review of Canadian Studies, 1971–2021 traces the birth and growth of that field by reproducing 15 exemplary articles published in the pages of that journal from its establishment until the present day. For five decades, the American Review of Canadian Studies (ARCS) acted as a bellwether for the field, revealing its strengths, projecting new directions and inquiries, and reflecting the changing topics and methods that scholars used to study Canada. This book captures the history of that field in one robust volume. Carefully selected by the co-editors of ARCS, the chapters in this edited volume are prefaced by an introductory essay that assesses the accomplishments of the field and brief chapter introductions that place them into context.
This book explores controversies surrounding free speech and open inquiry (FSOI) in various regions of the Anglophone world. The authors argue that the past decade has seen a noticeable erosion of FSOI across the globe, aided and abetted by university clerisies and state apparatuses. These groups’ policing of language and pandering to cancel culture, the authors argue, have narrowed the Overton window to the point of reinvigorating the push for blasphemy law within liberal democracies themselves and impeding certain avenues scientific research. While most books on the subject discuss the American constitutional context of the First Amendment, this book considers free speech in the wider context of other Anglo countries. It also includes scholars from a variety of disciplines whose approaches will not only be ideologically distinct, but demonstrate a diversity of disciplinary approaches and concerns.
