Author | Samuel Peter Nelson |
---|---|
Country | United States |
Language | English |
Subject | Freedom of speech |
Genre | Law |
Publisher | Johns Hopkins University Press |
Publication date | 2005 |
Pages | 240 |
ISBN | 978-0801881732 |
OCLC | 56924685 |
Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism is a book about freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, written by author Samuel Peter Nelson. It was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2005. [1] [2] In it, Nelson discusses how the more general notion of free speech differs from that specifically applied to the First Amendment in American law.
The book was positively received in reviews from academic and legal journals. Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries recommended the book due to its thought-provoking propositions, [3] and a review in The Journal of Politics described it as "a nice effort to explore free speech issues not covered by the First Amendment or constitutional law". [4] A review in the journal Political Communication concluded of the author's argumentation: "His is indeed a theory fraught with possibilities both favorable and unfavorable to an expanded scope for the contents of free speech". [5] Law and Politics Book Review concluded "Beyond the First Amendment is an intriguing and important contribution to the literature on free speech". [6]
Samuel Peter Nelson graduated from Northwestern University with a Bachelor of Arts degree. [7] He subsequently obtained a PhD from the University of Wisconsin–Madison. [7] Nelson is an associate professor in the department of political science and public administration at the University of Toledo, having joined the department in 2001. [7]
Nelson's work discusses the differences between concepts in the United States involving the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the larger notion of freedom of speech. [3] [4] The author discusses complex problems involving cyberspace communications and discourse which takes place on the Internet, and puts forth the supposition that such speech is not as easily addressed by the United States Constitution. [3] [4] Nelson points out that legal matters dealing with free speech in society often occur outside the United States or through regulation of online parties by sovereign state entities, and thus do not always directly fall within the jurisdiction of the United States government and American law. [3] [4] Nelson introduces the concept of a "pluralist framework" to address the various factors which drive free speech. [3] [5] [8]
Beyond the First Amendment is cited as a reference in the Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties edited by Paul Finkelman, [9] and Self-Examination: The Present and Future of Librarianship by John M. Budd. [10] The book received a positive reception from a review in Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries by M. W. Bowers of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, who wrote: "The work is recommended reading for its provocative argument". [3]
In a review of the book in The Journal of Politics , Mark A. Graber of the University of Maryland pointed out how the book's author highlights areas of free speech which fall outside the jurisdiction of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and commented:
This effort to highlight important free speech issues in areas that are not governed by the First Amendment offers a particularly promising avenue for political scientists interested in American constitutionalism. Doctrinal scholarship is dominated by law professors who have special training in making legal arguments. By comparison, the constitutional issues that arise outside of constitutional law discussed in Beyond the First Amendment require the sort of special training in political theory and public policy that marks education in the social sciences." [4]
Graber concluded, "Beyond the First Amendment highlights how most crucial questions in institutional settings concern the value that ought to be placed on certain expressions rather than the legal right to engage in that expression". [4]
Peter G. Fish of Duke University reviewed Beyond the First Amendment for Political Communication , and wrote that Nelson's arguments within the book "provide able and well-crafted analyses of identifiable problems in communications". [5] Fish analyzed the nature of Nelson's argumentation, and commented "Nelson is seemingly offering a cost (injury to society)-benefit analysis for specific exercises of all kinds of speech in the context of all sorts of social values and relationships irrespective of whether such relationships are found in the public or private sphere". [5] Fish discussed Nelson's concepts within the framework of changing viewpoints on free speech through varying mediums of communication including online fora and speech in other venues: "How to weigh these elements also figures in Nelson's consideration of the Internet with its capacity for international communications—how to weigh the intent of an Internet speaker against an unintended hostile foreign audience shielded by its own local laws or even remote, but culturally distinctive, domestic audiences for that matter". [5] He posits that Nelson's plurality theory contains elements which would impact free speech in the future: "What Nelson terms 'incommensurable values' embedded in remote legal cultures not perceived by the speaker requires close attention to context, speaker's intention or lack thereof, and 'uptake' on the part of distant audiences. His is indeed a theory fraught with possibilities both favorable and unfavorable to an expanded scope for the contents of free speech". [5]
Beyond the First Amendment is an intriguing and important contribution to the literature on free speech.
Professor Steven B. Lichtman of the department of political science at the University of Vermont reviewed the book for the Law and Politics Book Review , and identified Nelson's pluralist theory as a significant contribution. [6] Lichtman commented, "The most important contribution of Beyond the First Amendment is its attempt to offer up a new model for understanding and safeguarding free speech". [6] He praised the author for supporting his model with case history: "As a purely philosophical matter, Nelson’s pluralist framework is certainly intriguing. The model must be more than a mere talking point, though, and Nelson wisely endeavors to show how the pluralist framework can be deployed as a means of resolving actual cases". [6] Lichtman concluded by recommending the work for academic scholars: "Beyond the First Amendment is an intriguing and important contribution to the literature on free speech. While it is likely beyond the grasp of all but the most talented undergraduates, its overview of First Amendment theory is an excellent resource for graduate students beginning to explore the field. For scholars, it is a challenging and provocative work sure to cause us to reassess how we teach and write about the subject". [6]
Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation". Legal definitions of hate speech vary from country to country.
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect the defendants from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, the defendants, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within their constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, the defendants could be punished.
The marketplace of ideas is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The marketplace of ideas holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population. The concept is often applied to discussions of patent law as well as freedom of the press and the responsibilities of the media in a liberal democracy.
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 which made it a criminal offense to urge the curtailment of production of the materials necessary to wage the war against Germany with intent to hinder the progress of the war. The 1918 Amendment is commonly referred to as if it were a separate Act, the Sedition Act of 1918.
Jack M. Balkin is an American legal scholar. He is the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. Balkin is the founder and director of the Yale Information Society Project (ISP), a research center whose mission is "to study the implications of the Internet, telecommunications, and the new information technologies for law and society." He also directs the Knight Law and Media Program and the Abrams Institute for Free Expression at Yale Law School.
Freedom of the press in the United States is legally protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Agonism is a political and social theory that emphasizes the potentially positive aspects of certain forms of conflict. It accepts a permanent place for such conflict in the political sphere, but seeks to show how individuals might accept and channel this conflict positively. Agonists are especially concerned with debates about democracy, and the role that conflict plays in different conceptions of it. The agonistic tradition to democracy is often referred to as agonistic pluralism. Beyond the realm of the political, agonistic frameworks have similarly been utilized in broader cultural critiques of hegemony and domination, as well as in literary and science fiction.
In law, commercial speech is speech or writing on behalf of a business with the intent of earning revenue or a profit. It is economic in nature and usually attempts to persuade consumers to purchase the business's product or service. The Supreme Court of the United States defines commercial speech as speech that "proposes a commercial transaction".
Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision-making are located mostly in the framework of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence are distributed in a political process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation. The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic equilibrium, and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals. A polyarchy—a situation of open competition for electoral support within a significant part of the adult population—ensures competition of group interests and relative equality. Pluralists stress civil rights, such as freedom of expression and organization, and an electoral system with at least two parties. On the other hand, since the participants in this process constitute only a tiny fraction of the populace, the public acts mainly as bystanders. This is not necessarily undesirable for two reasons: (1) it may be representative of a population content with the political happenings, or (2) political issues require continuous and expert attention, which the average citizen may not have.
Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age is a non-fiction book about cyberlaw, written by free speech lawyer Mike Godwin. It was first published in 1998 by Times Books. It was republished in 2003 as a revised edition by The MIT Press. Godwin graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1990 and was the first staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Written with a first-person perspective, Cyber Rights offers a background in the legal issues and history pertaining to free speech on the Internet. It documents the author's experiences in defending free speech online, and puts forth the thesis that "the remedy for the abuse of free speech is more speech". Godwin emphasizes that decisions made about the expression of ideas on the Internet affect freedom of speech in other media as well, as granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History is a non-fiction book about the history of freedom of speech in the United States written by Michael Kent Curtis and published in 2000 by Duke University Press. The book discusses the evolution of free speech in the U.S. within the context of the actions of individuals and how they affected change. The author writes that protests and actions by citizens helped to evolve the notions surrounding free speech in the U.S. before definitive statements on the matter from U.S. courts. Curtis writes that free speech rights were first developed in "the forum of public opinion", and that, "The history of free speech shows the need for broadly protective free speech rules applied generally and equally".
Freedom of Expression® is a book written by Kembrew McLeod about freedom of speech issues involving concepts of intellectual property. The book was first published in 2005 by Doubleday as Freedom of Expression®: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity, and in 2007 by University of Minnesota Press as Freedom of Expression®: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property. The paperback edition includes a foreword by Lawrence Lessig. The author recounts a history of the use of counter-cultural artistry, illegal art, and the use of copyrighted works in art as a form of fair use and creative expression. The book encourages the reader to continue such uses in art and other forms of creative expression.
Net.wars is a non-fiction book by journalist Wendy M. Grossman about conflict and controversy among stakeholders on the Internet. It was published by NYU Press in 1997, and was simultaneously made available free as an online version. The book discusses conflicts which arose during the growth of the Internet from 1993 through 1997, labeled by Grossman as "boundary disputes". These disputes deal with issues including privacy, encryption, copyright, censorship, sex, and pornography. The author discusses history of organizations in their attempts to enforce their intellectual property on the Internet, against individuals who attempted to reveal confidential materials asserting it was in the public interest. Grossman frames these disputes with respect to overarching rights of freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Best American Magazine Writing 2007 is a non-fiction book published by Columbia University Press, and edited by the American Society of Magazine Editors. It features recognized high-quality journalism pieces from the previous year. The book includes an account by journalist William Langewiesche of Vanity Fair about a controversial United States military operation in Iraq, an investigative journalism article for Rolling Stone by Janet Reitman, a piece published in Esquire by C.J. Chivers about the Beslan school hostage crisis, and an article by Christopher Hitchens about survivors of Agent Orange.
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Schenck v. United States (1919), Whitney v. California (1927), United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).
The William O. Douglas Prize is given by the Commission on Freedom of Expression of the Speech Communication Association to honor those who contribute to writing about freedom of speech. The Award is named after William O. Douglas, who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 to 1975.
The censorship of student media in the United States is the suppression of student-run news operations' free speech by school administrative bodies, typically state schools. This typically consists of schools using their authority to control the funding and distribution of publications, taking down articles, and preventing distribution. Some forms of student media censorship extend to expression not funded by or under the official auspices of the school system or college.
Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth is a non-fiction book by attorney and civil libertarian, Marjorie Heins about freedom of speech and the relationship between censorship and the "think of the children" argument. The book presents a chronological history of censorship from Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages to the present. It discusses notable censored works, including Ulysses by James Joyce, Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence and the seven dirty words monologue by comedian George Carlin. Heins discusses censorship aimed at youth in the United States through legislation including the Children's Internet Protection Act and the Communications Decency Act.
Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars is a non-fiction book by lawyer and civil libertarian Marjorie Heins that is about freedom of speech and the censorship of works of art in the early 1990s by the U.S. government. The book was published in 1993 by The New Press. Heins provides an overview of the history of censorship, including the 1873 Comstock laws, and then moves on to more topical case studies of attempts at suppression of free expression.
I argue that free speech is a political concept... (page x)... The pluralist framework I propose encourages a reinvigorated politics of free speech that values political debate and judgment about the boundaries of freedom of speech as opposed to the legal and proceduralist focus of debates about speech under the First Amendment framework. (page 3)