Book Description
Sullivan and Gunther's First Amendment Law included important recent developments in areas such as the regulation of sexually indecent speech on the Internet and other new communications media, the constitutional law of political money and campaign finance, the government's constitutional leeway to regulate liquor and tobacco advertising, the constitutionality of decency restriction on national arts grants, and the use of public funds to subsidize parochial school education. One volume.
Book Description
Expert authors summarize the principles set forth in case law and explore the philosophical foundations of First Amendment law. Current theories are examined to explain the rationale behind constitutional protection for free expression and freedom of religion. The debate between separationists and religious accommodationists in establishment clause jurisprudence is featured in this text as well.
Customer Reviews:
Highly recommended.......2004-12-05
"Congress shall make no law...," but on this subject at least, the Supreme Court gets to do pretty much whatever it wants. First Amendment doctrine is notoriously serpentine and challenging. While this nutshell doesn't change that, it does explain the law in a crisp, well-organized fashion, with a good balance of case summary and explanation/analysis. The authors are concise without dumbing down the law. While there are big treatises out there for practitioners or for in-depth reference use (e.g., Smolla and Nimmer), there aren't very many First Amendment study aids out there. I think this one is the best.
Book Description
Written by a leading national scholar, Farber's coverage of the First Amendment is clear and accessible. All of the major areas of this complex doctrine are reviewed, including religion clauses. The text also serves as an introduction to the major debates over controversial issues such as pornography and hate speech.
Customer Reviews:
Well-Written Coverage of a Complicated Subject.......2003-11-12
This is a very rewarding and well-written text on all the issues concerned with the First Amendment, which are far more complicated than you might think. The book starts strongly with in-depth coverage of the original language of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, different schools of thought on the nature of free speech, and how the doctrine of free speech developed over time. Key concepts such as the "content distinction" are then introduced, followed by distinct chapters on problematic free speech issues such as hate speech, sexual material, and speech in public schools. Farber does a good job of detailing important court cases in which relevant free speech rules were defined, as well as interesting contemporary cases in which new issues have been raised. The best aspect of this book is Farber's very strong writing about ethical issues, social problems, and unclear court doctrines. He's very good at coming up with hypothetical situations to illustrate loopholes in First Amendment law, and his examination of the social issues behind hate speech and pornography are outstandingly written and evenhanded, and are the impressive highlights of the book. This is highly recommended for anyone studying the unexpectedly complicated realm of free speech in America. [~doomsdayer520~]
Thought provoking.......1999-11-25
Farber takes the first amendment and in an easy to understand fashion explains how the Supreme Court interprets laws regarding our free speech as American Citizens.
Product Description
This book is designed for a two or three unit course in the First Amendment. The authors present the materials in a way that permits instructors to depart from the organization of the casebook with relative ease. The authors also try to expose students to original perspectives or perspectives they might otherwise miss. Notes and questions enable students to study the variety of competing views embodying the First Amendment as they emerge from concrete cases rather than from abstract characterization and classification imposed on the student at the outset of the study.
Customer Reviews:
Concise information and generally excellent editing.......2007-03-27
It's hard to write a good, concise First Amendment text - there's just too many nuanced areas of free speech law, church and state, and miscellaneous protections like expressive association. But Chopper does a pretty good job of covering what he wants to cover and also covering all that those areas need covered.
First, the cases are well-edited and deliver the essential information in the cases. There have been many times where I've gone to read the rest of the case, but that's because -as someone who likes to write on the topic- I'm more interested in the full versions than a short version. But often, the core of the case holdings are in the textbook effectively, which is what I think most comprehensive law school classes are aiming for.
Second, the book is pretty good (though not perfect) at avoiding bombarding the reader with questions to promote thought on various topics ("Should the First Amendment protect [insert difficult item here]?"). Generally, I've found that law students just don't have time to stop and contemplate all the questions that text book "notes and comments" sections ask. Other books certainly take this too far, but Choper does well in keeping it pretty reduced.
Finally, the case selection is generally excellent. I haven't yet encountered any sections that are lacking a foundational case. Sometimes cases are given only footnote or comments and notes status, but again, in First Amendment law that may be inevitable (unless you want to do a multi-volume set).
All in all, a pretty good book and review of the applicable law. First Amendment litigants or those specializing in First Amendment law will obviously need to read beyond the pages of this book.
[...]
Average customer rating:
- Interesting, but comon!
- Thought-provoking, but not really scholarly or scientific
- An Authoritarian Trashes the Internet
- A poor solution for a problem that doesn't exist
- A student in the process of reading
|
Republic.com
Cass R. Sunstein
Manufacturer: Princeton University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 Digital Law
| Business & Culture
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
Culture
| Business & Culture
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
Internet
| Home Computing
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
| Internet & Education
| Online Searching
| Web Browsers
| Web for Kids
General
| Computers & Internet
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Media Studies
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Democracy
| Political Doctrines
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Technology & Society
| Communication
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Freedom & Security
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Reference
| Law Practice
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Reference
| Law Practice
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside Computer Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Look Inside Reference Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge
-
Shamans, Software, and Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society
-
Why Societies Need Dissent (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures)
-
Communications Policy and the Public Interest: The Telecommunications Act of 1996
-
Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace
ASIN: 0691095892 |
Amazon.com
The center does not hold. The rise of customizable media has mainstream thinkers, used to a near-monopoly on attention, running scared. Legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein makes the case for a more robust information diet from a slightly left of center point of view in Republic.com. Building on the ideas of the Technorealist movement, Sunstein focuses on the increasing volume of extremist voices as people choose to read or listen to only those points of view they already share. Though it seems that he occasionally overstates his case--it seems unlikely that we'll ever really be able to filter every unwanted or unexpected opinion--he does score some solid blows against the current, more or less laissez faire system. His prose is clear and accessible--exactly the kind of reasoned discourse he values and wants to preserve. His proposed program of government-sponsored and mandated public media spaces probably won't rouse many readers to wholehearted endorsement, but the suggestion that we have problems brewing ought to be enough to spur further thought. Since everyone from the American Nazi Party to the Zapatistas has found a stronger voice via the Internet, it's little wonder that we're starting to hear concerned prophets warning of a new Babel. Whether we can--or should--do anything beforehand is an open question; Republic.com makes a strong and pointed case against the status quo. --Rob Lightner
Book Description
See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Tomorrow, our power to filter promises to increase exponentially. With the advent of the Daily Me, you see only the sports highlights that concern your teams, read about only the issues that interest you, encounter in the op-ed pages only the opinions with which you agree. In all of the applause for this remarkable ascendance of personalized information, Cass Sunstein asks the questions, Is it good for democracy? Is it healthy for the republic? What does this mean for freedom of speech?
Republic.com exposes the drawbacks of egocentric Internet use, while showing us how to approach the Internet as responsible citizens, not just concerned consumers. Democracy, Sunstein maintains, depends on shared experiences and requires citizens to be exposed to topics and ideas that they would not have chosen in advance. Newspapers and broadcasters helped create a shared culture, but as their role diminishes and the customization of our communications universe increases, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving. In their place will arise only louder and ever more extreme echoes of our own voices, our own opinions.
In evaluating the consequences of new communications technologies for democracy and free speech, Sunstein argues the question is not whether to regulate the Net (it's already regulated), but how; proves that freedom of speech is not an absolute; and underscores the enormous potential of the Internet to promote freedom as well as its potential to promote "cybercascades" of like-minded opinions that foster and enflame hate groups. The book ends by suggesting a range of potential reforms to correct current misconceptions and to improve deliberative democracy and the health of the American republic.
Chat with Cass Sunstein in a Message Forum hosted beginning April 1, 2001.
Download Description
See only what you want to see, hear only what you want to hear, read only what you want to read. In cyberspace, we already have the ability to filter out everything but what we wish to see, hear, and read. Tomorrow, our power to filter promises to increase exponentially. With the advent of the Daily Me, you see only the sports highlights that concern your teams, read about only the issues that interest you, encounter in the op-ed pages only the opinions with which you agree. In all of the applause for this remarkable ascendance of personalized information, Cass Sunstein asks the questions, Is it good for democracy? Is it healthy for the republic? What does this mean for freedom of speech?Republic.com exposes the drawbacks of egocentric Internet use, while showing us how to approach the Internet as responsible citizens, not just concerned consumers. Democracy, Sunstein maintains, depends on shared experiences and requires citizens to be exposed to topics and ideas that they would not have chosen in advance. Newspapers and broadcasters helped create a shared culture, but as their role diminishes and the customization of our communications universe increases, society is in danger of fragmenting, shared communities in danger of dissolving. In their place will arise only louder and ever more extreme echoes of our own voices, our own opinions. In evaluating the consequences of new communications technologies for democracy and free speech, Sunstein argues the question is not whether to regulate the Net (it's already regulated), but how; proves that freedom of speech is not an absolute; and underscores the enormous potential of the Internet to promote freedom as well as its potential to promote "cybercascades" of like-minded opinions that foster and enflame hate groups. The book ends by suggesting a range of potential reforms to correct current misconceptions and to improve deliberative democracy and the health of the American republic.
Customer Reviews:
Interesting, but comon!.......2007-01-16
Lacking in almost everyway. It was lightly interesting, but not really very entertaining. Doesn't make you want to keep reading. Read only if it is assigned in class, like it was for me.
Thought-provoking, but not really scholarly or scientific.......2005-09-10
This was an interesting read for the first... 50 or 70 pages. Then it seemed like the info was repeated over and over again without new substantiation... kind of like debating with oneself - I lost interest right there... maybe that's because I have no background in law...
However, the main thesis of the book is really thought-provoking for those interested in online communication and polit science. The fact that internet is not "all-good" and not "all-evil" is evident from reading this volume; a few good examples vividly demonstrate it, mostly anecdotally and logically, rather than impirically.
I'd recommend this book, it's fist 50 pages are worth the money!
An Authoritarian Trashes the Internet.......2005-03-22
I give this book three stars not because I agree with it but because I think people need to read this book to find out that there are VERY influential people in this country who have a problem with the free exchange of information and ideas that occurs on the Internet. Sunstein's thesis is that the Internet fragments and personalizes information to such an extent that individuals are increasingly isolated from contrary views; this isolation allows "bad" ideas to go unchecked, thereby promoting extremism and threatening democracy. Sunstein proposes a series of "solutions" which are both unworkable and unnecessary, for his basic premise is flawed.
Contrary to Sunstein, the Internet gives people access to more, not less, information, more opinions, not fewer, and gives people more opportunities - not fewer - to challenge and respond to false or contrary information. Chat rooms and web bloggers provide unprecedented opportunities to engage people of differing opinions, opportunities unavailable in the days when everybody sat in front of the TV and passively accepted the scripted, highly centralized news reporting of a Walter Cronkite or Dan Rather. Sunstein seems unaware that even highly partisan websites ALREADY serve as forums for evaluating and responding to contrary viewpoints, and that bitter disputes occur even among people who share the same general philosophy.
Sunstein explicitly yearns for a return to the days when network news programming would provide a "shared frame of reference" for the public; in other words, he longs for the days when news - presented by people with views similar to his own - could function as propaganda, unquestioned by dissenting voices. Sunstein is thus an authoritarian masking as a libertarian; he wants to control and regulate what you see and hear.
A poor solution for a problem that doesn't exist.......2005-03-22
Repulic.com identifies a problem with the new popularity of the internet. With all of the filtering we are able to do through the use of modern software, we may only ever see the type of content that reaffirms our own biases. According to Sunstein, this will result in people having less and less exposure to opposing viewpoints, and the end result will be the fragmentation of the Internet into splinter groups of like-minded individuals. He then goes on to identify a series of ways that this problem can be fixed, all of which involve increased regulation on the content of the web.
The ideas behind this book were poorly thought out from the start, and indicate that the author doesn't have a firm grip on the reality of the Internet, or even of what social interaction involves. He states that we seek out like-minded people and that we can limit our exposure to information that is disseminated only by these people. While this may be true, no two people are ever entirely like-minded. A discussion group on music will have people from all different political backgrounds, a discussion on politics will have people from nearly any religion, and in a religious discussion every possible genre of music fan will usually be represented. People never discuss strictly one subject in an Internet discussion group, in fact this often poses a problem for moderators who want to keep the discussions on topic. Any internet discussion group will have so many different viewpoints that argument is inevitable.
At this point the author might point out that people will be able to filter this content to display only the information that they agree with, but this argument doesn't take human nature into account. People enjoy arguing and convincing others of the truth of their arguments. A person who reads only conservative discussions will inevitably head to a liberal discussion group and start an argument, and vice versa. Sure, they can be banned, but most discussion groups welcome open debates, and this trend shows every sign of continuing well into the future.
Sunstein then argues his case for the Orwellian regulation of all Internet media with the goal of exposing people to more viewpoints. He tries to draw a parallel to the regulation of other media, but misses several glaring differences. Television, newspapers, radio, and magazines are all distributed by a small group of corporations. This makes it easy for a small group of people to control the media, but it also makes them easy to regulate since there aren't many avenues for content to be distributed to the people. The World Wide Web on the other hand, is the diametric opposite of these types of media. Anyone can create content, anyone can find content, and no one can control content.
Throughout the book, the author beats up straw men, compares apples to oranges and extrapolates oversimplified trends to impossible ends. In the end, he never actually explains how his bad ideas could be realistically implemented, but it would inevitably involve a convoluted mess of government regulation. Read it if you must, but this book is only useful as an example of a poor persuasive argument written by an author with only a rudimentary understanding of how the world operates.
A student in the process of reading.......2003-04-02
I recently began to read sunsteins' book, and I have to say that it raises thought provoking ideas on the direction our society is headed if we continue down our current path. I would have to agree with Howe, in that the Daily Me does not open us up to new ideas or other prospectives and therefore does not allow our democracy room to breath. We are sealing ourselves off from the rest of the world by having everything that we like at our disposal while refusing other information.
Even though some of his ideas may seem far-fetched, it is this type of thinking that allows our minds to see different perspectives and escape the fate that awaits us. Of course, his book is not the only thought-provoker but in this growing field of technology ideas such as sunsteins are interesting and a bit refreshing in the world of information
Book Description
Words, like sticks and stones, can assault; they can injure; they can exclude. In this important book, four prominent legal scholars from the tradition of critical race theory draw on the experience of injury from racist hate speech to develop a first amendment interpretation that recognizes such injuries. In their critique of "first amendment orthodoxy," the authors argue that only a history of racism can explain why defamation, invasion of privacy, and fraud are exempt from free-speech guarantees while racist and sexist verbal assaults are not.
Customer Reviews:
thoughtful writing on critical race theory and the law.......2000-03-10
this book examines how free speech in this country intersects with assaultive speech.it challenges the thought that all speech should be protected, and engages you to examine the intent behind many words that we take for granted.
matsuda is known as a constitutional scholar and passionate inquisitor into the blurry intersection of race, gender, the law, and language. whether you agree with her views or not, this book and the ideas put forth will challenge you to examine your own beliefs and expectations of what your civil rights are.
Average customer rating:
|
Student's Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws on the First Amendment (Student's Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws)
Clyde E. Willis
Manufacturer: Greenwood Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Law
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Professional & Technical
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0313314160 |
Book Description
We Americans have enshrined our most cherished rights in the First Amendment to our Constitution, including the freedom of religion, speech and press; the right to assemble; and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Since the formation of the republic, Congress has been actively engaged in enacting laws that have a direct and significant bearing on First Amendment rights. This ideal student resource provides the carefully edited and explained text of 31 landmark Congressional laws in all areas of First Amendment rights--from internal security to symbolic speech, campaign financing, obscenity, intellectual property, and freedom of religion. Organized topically for ease of use, this resource allows students to examine and compare the landmark laws on a particular topic across the breadth of American history through the year 2000. For instance, students can compare changes in the laws on obscenity from the Comstock Act of 1873, to the Anti-Dial-a-Porn Act of 1989 and the Child Online Protection Act of 1998. The landmark laws are organized into nine categories: internal security, symbolic speech, election campaign activities, obscenity, intellectual property, labor-management relations, federally funded programs, and freedom of religion. Each category opens with a general overview of the laws covered in that section and a brief summary of how they relate to each other. The entry on each landmark law features a discussion of the historical background of the law, the intent and purpose of the law, an examination of the substance and impact of the law, and a carefully edited actual text of key passages of the law. Each entry concludes with a bibliography of recommended print sources and Web sites for students. An introductory overview of Congressional legislation on the First Amendment, followed by a detailed timeline of milestones in the history of Congressional legislation on First Amendment issues, put the topic in historical context for students. An appendix of tables of the statutes and cases with complete citations will aid student researchers.
Book Description
At a time when campaign finance reform is widely viewed as synonymous with cleaning up Washington and promoting political equality, Bradley Smith, a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance reform, argues that all restriction on campaign giving should be eliminated. In Unfree Speech, he presents a bold, convincing argument for the repeal of laws that regulate political spending and contributions, contending that they violate the right to free speech and ultimately diminish citizens' power.
Smith demonstrates that these laws, which often force ordinary people making modest contributions of cash or labor to register with the Federal Election Commission or various state agencies, fail to accomplish their stated objectives. In fact, they have worked to entrench incumbents in office, deaden campaign discourse, burden grassroots political activity with needless regulation, and distance Americans from an increasingly professional, detached political class. Rather than attempting to plug "loopholes" in campaign finance law or instituting taxpayer-financed campaigns, Smith proposes a return to core First Amendment values of free speech and an unfettered right to engage in political activity.
Smith finds that campaign contributions have little corrupting effect on the legislature and shows that an unrestrained system of contributions and spending actually enhances equality. More money, not less, is needed in the political system, Smith concludes. Unfree Speech draws upon constitutional law and historical research to explain why campaign finance regulation is doomed and to illustrate the potentially drastic costs of efforts to make it succeed. Whatever one thinks about the impact of money on electoral politics, no one should take a final stand without reading Smith's controversial and important arguments.
Customer Reviews:
Good at expounding a viewpoint rarely heard, however..........2005-08-17
I greatly appreciate Professor Smith's analysis. If nothing else, the rarely heard opposition to campaing finance reform is set forth clearly in this book. There is, however, some shortcomings in his analysis.
First, take this passage (there are other analogous ones in the book that prove a similar point) from page 71:
"(Steve) Forbes indicated that he would not have sought the nomination had former congressman and secretary of housing and urban development Jack Kemp decided to run. Kemp chose not to run in large part because he did not want to engage in fund-raising. Had Forbes been able to donate to Kemp the $25 million he planned to spend on his own campaign, Kemp might have run and would quite likely have been a frontrunner for the Republican nomination."
It is easy to see that from this bit (and others) that Professor Smith does not wish to gloss over that fact that money in fact DOES affect politics. Later on that same page he entertains a thought experiment in which all campaign contributions were banned to see who would run in such a scenario. He admits that those with the most name recognition (athletes, celebrities, incumbents, succesful business persons active in their community, etc.) would be able to win. And importantly, he says that those who would win in the experiment wouldnt be much different than those who win now. It would seem then, that name recognition or fame also affects politics.
Thus, the following two things Professor Smith does not challenge: money affects politics, and name recognition affects politics. Now, it is also apparent that money affects name recognition (think TV ads). Given that Professor Smith does not argue with these things, an proponent of reform is unlikely to be swayed. For proponents the unconstested fact that money affects politics (and can buy at least some degree of name recognition) is enough to justify contribution limits. So, it would have been better to see Professor Smith adress more directly the proponents onjections.
I also find lacking that Professor Smith does not mention much about spending for state or local elections and how money affects politics in those instances. For example, in the Austin, TX city council elections recently, 4 Democratic candidates with near identical views ran. The election came to a runoff between the two top contenders, both of whom had TV ads while the other two did not. Does this disprove Professor Smith's arguments? No, but it would be better if he discussed local elections as well.
THE BEST.......2003-02-11
I WISH I COULD HAVE GIVEN IT 500 STARS! READ IT! THAT'S MY ORDER! Man I love this book!
Converted Me!.......2002-11-15
This book changing my way of thinking 180 degrees. I was a huge John McCain and Campaign Finance Reform fan, but I read this book just to see what the other side had to say. I am sure glad I did! Smith points out many problems with alleged reform on mulitple levels. If you are interested in campaign finance reform, however you may feel about the subject, I suggest you read this book.
Best Analysis Of The Issue Yet..........2001-07-31
As the best known critic of campaign finance reform, Bradley Smith makes strong arguments not just against the legislation itself but against the philosophy underlying the entire movement. This is important, because many supporters of reform refuse to acknowledge that any case against their rationale exists. Many critiques of campaign finance legislation focus on proving that not nearly as much money is spent on campaigning as the public has been led to believe, or that the proposed legislation would give certain types of grassroots groups an unfair advantage over others. Smith's attack goes much further than that. He demonstrates why, in the long run, strict regulation of campaigns will harm everyone by crippling their ability to channel their talents into meaningful participation in the political process.
The first half of the book serves as a comprehensive survey of arguments brought against reform. He begins by analyzing why the proposed legislation would give incumbents enormous advantages over challengers. From there, he discusses how the term corruption has been expanded to mean anything that a legislator does to respond to the wishes of constituents who helped contribute to her campaign-whether or not a causal link can be established between particular contributions and particular legislation. He concludes it with a section on how limits placed on monetary expenditures made to pay for speech are, in fact, limits placed on speech itself because the expenditure of money to pay for speech is inextricably linked to speech itself.
In the second half, he deconstructs philosophical arguments used to justify reforms and turns them on their heads. He starts by pointing out that supporters of reform typically ignore the fact that most non-monetary means of influencing politicians are not distributed on an egalitarian basis. Thus, simply removing private contributions from our political system will not make everyone equal overnight. He develops this point by discussing the traditional notion of political equality-that "...Citizens are free to use their differing abilities, financial wherewithal, and personal disposition to become more or less active in political life, and to attempt to persuade their fellow citizens to vote in a particular manner." He points out that campaign finance reform is nothing more than an attempt to narrow the pool of individuals afforded this freedom.
He concludes by hammering this point home: "...Because the First Amendment...makes no distinction between the different types of political influence, it allows a maximum number of voters to participate and helps to prevent any one faction or interest from gaining the upper hand in political debate." This Madisonian indictment of the campaign finance movement goes above and beyond merely attacking various legislative proposals as incumbent protection schemes. It cuts through all the political rhetoric and reveals what campaign finance reform really is: an attempt by a coalition of elite groups to cast the rules of political debate on their own terms.
If you're concerned about free speech, read this book. You won't be disappointed.
Freedom!.......2001-06-12
We live in a strange age where advocates for free speech like Bradley Smith are cruxified in the newspaper and those who call for government regulations of speech are lauded.
In this important work, Smith points out the this hypocrisy and others dealing with America's number one feel good issue -- campaign finance reform.
America's staunchest proponents for freedom of the press are also America's strong propnents of regulation of political speech. Smith takes them on head-on with an impressive array of facts, figures and historical example.
In Smith's view, and the view of our Founders, the answer to problems dealing with political speech lie not in government regulation but in more political speech. Too bad American's news media and opinion makers don't take this message to heart.
Book Description
The first comprehensive history of the evolution of Free Speech in America for a general readership, from a respected historian and free speech activist.
After Upton Sinclair, famed author of The Jungle, was arrested for reading the First Amendment on Liberty Hill in 1923, The Nation commented: "When we contemplate the antics of the chief of police of Los Angeles, we are deterred from characterizing him as an ass only through fear that such a comparison would lay us open to damages from every self-respecting donkey." In this lively history of our most fundamental and perhaps most vulnerable right, Chris Finan traces the lifeline of free speech from the War on Terror back to the turn of the last century.
During the YMCA's 1892 Suppression of Vice campaign, muttonchopped moralist Anthony Comstock railed against writing by that "Irish smut dealer" George Bernard Shaw. The burgeoning film industry of the early 1900s cannibalized its own reels as state censors dictated how many seconds on-screen kisses could last and refused to allow any references to birth, including a scene of a woman knitting baby clothes. In the midst of the country's first Red Scare, the government rounded up thousands of Russian Americans for deportation during the Palmer raids. Decades later, a second Red Scare gripped the country as Senator Joseph McCarthy spearheaded a witch-hunt for "egg-sucking liberals" who defended "Communists and queers."
Finan's dramatic review of such touchstones as the Scopes trial and Edward R. Murrow's challenge to Joseph McCarthy are revelatory; many of his narratives are entirely fresh and have as much relevance to our post-PATRIOT Act world as his final chapter on the twenty-first century. The story of the fight for free speech, in times of war and peace-when writers, publishers, booksellers, and librarians are often on the front lines-is essential reading.
Customer Reviews:
Good narrative of challenges to free speech.......2007-10-08
This is a wide-ranging and fairly comprehensive book about challenges to free speech in the United States. It is primarily a narrative and tries to make all the players come alive, and has only a little bit of analysis. It covers not only government attempts to limit speech but also boycotts and picketing of bookstores (usually ineffective) and pressure on advertisers to withdraw sponsorship of ill-regarded programs (usually effective).
It omits a few areas that have been important. There is a mention of Banned Books Week but no discussion of book banning in schools and libraries. The 1989 Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson that ruled that flag burning is protected political symbolic speech is alluded to (but not named) in a discussion of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
The book's biggest weakness is that it doesn't look at all into the reasoning used in the Supreme Court cases. This justices' written opinions are usually much more important in determining the course of the law than is the way the decision went. Most of the important free speech issues have gone before the Supreme Court.
My favorite quote in the book is from Judge Murray I. Gurfein, regarding the New York Time's publication of the Pentagon Papers: "A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know." Amen.
Average customer rating:
- Learning From History, Protecting Our Free Speech Heritage
|
Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History (Constitutional Conflicts)
Michael Kent Curtis
Manufacturer: Duke University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
General
| 19th Century
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Colonial Period
| United States
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Americas
| History
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Constitutional Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Legal History
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Non-US Legal Systems
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Legal History
| Perspectives on Law
| Law
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Freedom & Security
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Look Inside History Books
| Trip
| Specialty Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Similar Items:
-
The Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment
ASIN: 0822325292 |
Book Description
Modern ideas about the protection of free speech in the United States did not originate in twentieth-century Supreme Court cases, as many have thought. Free Speech, “The People’s Darling Privilege” refutes this misconception by examining popular struggles for free speech that stretch back through American history. Michael Kent Curtis focuses on struggles in which ordinary and extraordinary people, men and women, black and white, demanded and fought for freedom of speech during the period from 1791—when the Bill of Rights and its First Amendment bound only the federal government to protect free expression—to 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment sought to extend this mandate to the states. A review chapter is also included to bring the story up to date.
Curtis analyzes three crucial political struggles: the controversy that surrounded the 1798 Sedition Act, which raised the question of whether criticism of elected officials would be protected speech; the battle against slavery, which raised the question of whether Americans would be free to criticize a great moral, social, and political evil; and the controversy over anti-war speech during the Civil War. Many speech issues raised by these controversies were ultimately decided outside the judicial arena—in Congress, in state legislatures, and, perhaps most importantly, in public discussion and debate. Curtis maintains that modern proposals for changing free speech doctrine can usefully be examined in the light of this often ignored history. This broader history shows the crucial effect that politicians, activists, ordinary citizens—and later the courts—have had on the American understanding of free speech.
Filling a gap in legal history, this enlightening, richly researched historical investigation will be valuable for students and scholars of law, U.S. history, and political science, as well as for general readers interested in civil liberties and free speech.
Customer Reviews:
Learning From History, Protecting Our Free Speech Heritage.......2002-09-04
"The People's Darling Privilege" examines struggles for free speech in American history. Professor Curtis persuasively argues that the struggles were political, not judicial: early American controversies over free speech -- the 1798 Sedition Act, the battle over slavery, and antiwar speech during the Civil War -- were resolved largely outside the judicial sphere, in Congress, in state legislatures, in the public press, and, especially, in the hearts and minds of "the people." The legacy of these struggles - a constitutional commitment to a robust free speech system - only found judicial validation in the wake of the World Wars, in the Warren Court era, and, to a certain extent, in the Rehnquist Court. This history not only informs our twentieth century understanding of free speech, but also, and most importantly, our twenty-first century struggles to protect it. Indeed, the struggle du jour - the freedom of expression versus the war on terror -- underscores the importance and timeliness of Curtis' scholarship. As Curtis' history demonstrates, in times of intense social conflict and civil unrest, courts prove to be weak reeds in protecting civil liberties; thus, in today's political climate, "the people" must remain vigilant in protecting against unwarranted intrusions upon their "darling privilege."
Books:
- Global Marketing (4th Edition) (Pie)
- Governance of the Consuming Passions: A History of Sumptuary Law
- Griffith's Instructions for Patients, Seventh Edition
- Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition
- Harmonious Environment: Beautify, Detoxify and Energize Your Life, Your Home and Your Planet
- Health and Health Care 2010: The Forecast, The Challenge, 2nd Edition
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
- History: Fiction or Science? (Chronology, No. 1)
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- You Can Do It!: The Boomer's Guide to a Great Retirement
- The White Rose: Munich, 1942-1943
- Polymer Chemistry: The Basic Concepts
- Superior Death
- Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, Second Edition: How to Edit Yourself Into Print
- The Lean Manufacturing Pocket Handbook
- The Fostoria Value Guide
- Design Through Discovery: An Introduction
- Outsider Art: Spontaneous Alternatives
- Rocky Mountain Flower Finder: A Guide to Wildflowers Found Below Tree Line in the Rocky Mountains
Sullivan And Gunther's First Amendment Law 2006: Supplement (University Casebook) (University Casebook)
The First Amendment (Concepts & Insights)
First Amendment Law in a Nutshell: Constitutional Law (Nutshell Series)
Evidence
Evidence (University Casebook Series)
