You may have to register before you can download all our books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
The relationship between counter-terrorism policy in liberal-democratic countries and freedom of speech has never been more prominent than it is today. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, Western governments have made a distinct and deliberate move towards prevention - as opposed to purely prosecution - of terrorist crimes. However, in doing so, they have reached far into the freedom of speech, and, as Katharine Gelber argues, far further than many commentatorshave recognized. Examining the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, the book traces the significant shift in understandings of the appropriate parameters of freedom ofspeech and speech-practices in the counter-terrorism context, which has been seen both in policy change and in the discursive justification for that change. The book argues that this change has, to some extent, taken different forms in each jurisdiction, which reflect the pre-existing institutions within which the principle of freedom of speech was mediated in each country prior to 9/11.
This collection of thirteen new essays is the first to examine, from a range of disciplinary perspectives, how the new technologies and global reach of the Internet are changing the theory and practice of free speech. The rapid expansion of online communication, as well as the changing roles of government and private organizations in monitoring and regulating the digital world, give rise to new questions, including: How do philosophical defenses of the right to freedom of expression, developed in the age of the town square and the printing press, apply in the digital age? Should search engines be covered by free speech principles? How should international conflicts over online speech regulations be resolved? Is there a right to be forgotten that is at odds with the right to free speech? How has the Internet facilitated new speech-based harms such as cyber-stalking, twitter-trolling, and revenge porn, and how should these harms be addressed? The contributors to this groundbreaking volume include philosophers, legal theorists, political scientists, communications scholars, public policy makers, and activists.
What is hate speech? How does a person suffer when they are vilified? What can public policy do to redress it? This text proposes a new type of hate speech policy - "speaking back" - providing institutional, material and educational support to enable the victims of hate speech to respond.
Recently the alarm has been raised – basic freedoms are under attack in our universities. A generation of ‘snowflake’ students are shutting out ideas that challenge their views. Ideologically motivated academics are promoting propaganda at the expense of rigorous research and balanced teaching. Universities are caving in and denying platforms to ‘problematic’ public speakers. Is this true, or is it panic and exaggeration? Carolyn Evans and Adrienne Stone deftly investigate the arguments, analysing recent controversies and delving into the history of the university. They consider the academy’s core values and purpose, why it has historically given higher protection to certain free...
In modern liberal democracies, rights-based judicial intervention in the policy choices of elected bodies has always been controversial. For some, such judicial intervention has trivialized and impoverished democratic politics. For others judges have contributed to a dynamic and healthy dialogue between the different spheres of the constitution, removed from pressures imposed on elected representatives to respond to popular sentiment. This book provides a critical evaluation of ongoing debates surrounding the judicial role in protecting fundamental human rights, focusing in particular on legislative/executive abridgment of a core freedom in western society - namely, liberty of expression. A range of types of expression are considered, including expression related to electoral processes, political expression in general and sexually explicit forms of expression.
This book is an important contribution to the fields of law, politics and to comparative constitutional law more generally.
This volume considers whether it is possible to establish carefully tailored hate speech policies that recognize the histories and values of different countries.
Every liberal democracy has laws or codes against hate speech—except the United States. For constitutionalists, regulation of hate speech violates the First Amendment and damages a free society. Against this absolutist view, Jeremy Waldron argues powerfully that hate speech should be regulated as part of our commitment to human dignity and to inclusion and respect for members of vulnerable minorities. Causing offense—by depicting a religious leader as a terrorist in a newspaper cartoon, for example—is not the same as launching a libelous attack on a group’s dignity, according to Waldron, and it lies outside the reach of law. But defamation of a minority group, through hate speech, un...
Genocide Perspectives VI grapples with two core themes: the personal toll of genocide, and processes that facilitate the crime. From political choices governments and leaders make, through to denialism and impunity, the crime of genocide recurs again and again, across the globe. At what cost to individuals and communities? What might the legacy of this criminality be? This collection of essays examines the personal sacrifice genocide takes from those who live through the trauma, and the generations that follow. Contributors speak to the way visual art and literature attempt to represent genocide, hoping to make sense of problematic histories while also offering a means of reflection after ye...
Most liberal societies are deeply committed to free speech, but there is evidence that some kinds of speech can be harmful in ways that are detrimental to important liberal values, such as social inequality. This volume draws on a range of approaches in order to explore the problem and determine what ought to be done about allegedly harmful speech.