A comprehensive guide to effective participation in the public debate about our most indispensable right: freedom of expression Encouraging readers to think critically about freedom of speech and expression and the diverse critical perspectives that challenge the existing state of the law, this text provides a comprehensive analysis of the historical and legal contexts of the First Amendment, from its early foundations all the way to censorship on the Internet. Throughout the book, authors Douglas M. Fraleigh and Joseph S. Tuman use the "Marketplace of Ideas" metaphor to help readers visualize a world where the exchange of ideas is relatively unrestrained and self-monitored. The text provides students with the opportunity to read significant excerpts of landmark decisions and to think critically about the issues and controversies raised in these cases. Students will appreciate the treatment of contemporary issues, including free speech in a post-9/11 world, free expression in cyberspace, and First Amendment rights on college campuses. Features: Demystifies free speech law, encouraging readers to grapple with the complexities of significant ethical and legal issues Sparks student interest in "big picture" issues while simultaneously covering important foundational material, including incitement, fighting words, true threats, obscenity, indecency, child pornography, hate speech, time place and manner restrictions, symbolic expression, restrictions on the Internet, and terrorism. Includes significant excerpts from landmark freedom of expression cases, including concurring or dissenting opinions where applicable, to help students become active learners of free expression rights Offers critical analysis and alternative perspectives on free expression doctrines to demonstrate that existing doctrine is not necessarily ideal or immutable Includes a global perspective on free expression including a chapter on international and comparative perspectives that helps students see how the values of different cultures influence judicial decisions

The authors address current free expression issues & analyze the historical legal contexts of the First Amendment. Designed for communication and political science courses in freedom of speech, this text encourages students to think critically about freedom of speech.

Designed for communication and political science courses in freedom of speech, this text encourages students to think critically about freedom of speech and provides a comprehensive analysis of the historical and legal contexts of the first amendment, from its foundations through censorship on the Internet.

In order for free expression to be meaningful, there must be forums available for individuals wishing to express themselves. Despite an increasing number of broadcast stations, there are still far more people wishing to speak than there are licenses. This book examines the marketplaces for free speech and proposes means by which speaking opportunities can be increased. The author even proposes the creation of broadcast access channels. Unlike access proposals of the past, these channels would respect the rights of broadcasters and cable operators by not requiring them to accomodate speakers, but, rather, by establishing electronic soapboxes, open to speakers on a first-come basis, reflecting the traditional speech making in parks and on street corners. Caristi begins his work by examining the various freedom of expression theories. He asserts that of all the values protected, free expression as self-fulfillment is the most expansive and should be the approach adopted whenever possible. Through legal history and analysis, the book examines the cases and commentary relevant to public forum and broadcast cases. Red Lion, Tornillo, and their progeny are examined for rationale in regulating media. Despite claims to the contrary, scarcity is seen as an appropriate regulatory approach for broadcasting. This book is a valuable contribution to the discussion of first amendment and communication policy, and it should be of interest to students in communication, law, and public policy.

Named one of Newsweek’s "25 Must-Read Fall Fiction and Nonfiction Books to Escape the Chaos of 2020" The critically acclaimed journalist and bestselling author of The Rage of a Privileged Class explores one of the most essential rights in America—free speech—and reveals how it is crumbling under the combined weight of polarization, technology, money and systematized lying in this concise yet powerful and timely book. Free speech has long been one of American's most revered freedoms. Yet now, more than ever, free speech is reshaping America’s social and political landscape even as it is coming under attack. Bestselling author and critically acclaimed journalist Ellis Cose wades into the debate to reveal how this Constitutional right has been coopted by the wealthy and politically corrupt. It is no coincidence that historically huge disparities in income have occurred at times when moneyed interests increasingly control political dialogue. Over the past four years, Donald Trump’s accusations of “fake news,” the free use of negative language against minority groups, “cancel culture,” and blatant xenophobia have caused Americans to question how far First Amendment protections can—and should—go. Cose offers an eye-opening wholly original examination of the state of free speech in America today, litigating ideas that touch on every American’s life. Social media meant to bring us closer, has become a widespread disseminator of false information keeping people of differing opinions and political parties at odds. The nation—and world—watches in shock as white nationalism rises, race and gender-based violence spreads, and voter suppression widens. The problem, Cose makes clear, is that ordinary individuals have virtually no voice at all. He looks at the danger of hyper-partisanship and how the discriminatory structures that determine representation in the Senate and the electoral college threaten the very concept of democracy. He argues that the safeguards built into the Constitution to protect free speech and democracy have instead become instruments of suppression by an unfairly empowered political minority. But we can take our rights back, he reminds us. Analyzing the experiences of other countries, weaving landmark court cases together with a critical look at contemporary applications, and invoking the lessons of history, including the Great Migration, Cose sheds much-needed light on this cornerstone of American culture and offers a clarion call for activism and change.

Bush v. Gore brought to the public's attention the significance of election law and the United States Supreme Court's role in structuring the rules that govern how campaigns and elections function in America. In this book, Brian K. Pinaire examines one expanding domain within this larger legal context: freedom of speech in the political process, or, what he terms, electoral speech law. Specifically, Pinaire examines the Court's evolving conceptions of free speech in the electoral process and then traces the consequences of various debates and determinations from the post-World War II era to the present. In his analysis of the broad range of cases from this period, supplemented by four recent case study investigations, Pinaire explores competing visions of electoral expression in the marketplace of ideas, various methods for analyzing speech dilemmas, the multiple influences that shape the justices' notions of both the potential for and privileged status of electoral communication, and the ultimate implications of these Court rulings for American democracy.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.