Protecting Hate Speech: R.A.V. v. St. Paul PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download Protecting Hate Speech: R.A.V. v. St. Paul PDF full book. Access full book title Protecting Hate Speech: R.A.V. v. St. Paul by Susan Dudley Gold. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Susan Dudley Gold
Publisher: Cavendish Square Publishing, LLC
ISBN: 1627123946
Category : Juvenile Nonfiction
Languages : en
Pages : 146
Get Book Here
Book Description
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a free press and free speech, but those rights are not unlimited. In Protecting Hate Speech: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, award-winning author Susan Dudley Gold looks at the issues involved when the Minnesota city of St. Paul tried to ban hate speech within its borders. The entertaining account of the case explores the fine line legislators must walk when putting restrictions on free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case has become a testament to the sanctity of the First Amendment, even when it protects hateful speech and symbol acts that most Americans despise.
Author: Susan Dudley Gold
Publisher: Cavendish Square Publishing, LLC
ISBN: 1627123946
Category : Juvenile Nonfiction
Languages : en
Pages : 146
Get Book Here
Book Description
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a free press and free speech, but those rights are not unlimited. In Protecting Hate Speech: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, award-winning author Susan Dudley Gold looks at the issues involved when the Minnesota city of St. Paul tried to ban hate speech within its borders. The entertaining account of the case explores the fine line legislators must walk when putting restrictions on free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case has become a testament to the sanctity of the First Amendment, even when it protects hateful speech and symbol acts that most Americans despise.
Author: Randy E. Barnett
Publisher: Aspen Publishing
ISBN:
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 473
Get Book Here
Book Description
An Introduction to Constitutional Law teaches the narrative of constitutional law as it has developed historically and provides the essential background to understand how this foundational body of law has come to be what it is today. This multimedia experience combines a book and video series to engage students more directly in the study of constitutional law. All students—even those unfamiliar with American history—will garner a firm understanding of how constitutional law has evolved. An eleven-hour online video library brings the Supreme Court’s most important decisions to life. Videos are enriched by photographs, maps, and audio from the Supreme Court. The book and videos are accessible for all levels: law school, college, high school, home school, and independent study. Students can read and watch these materials before class to prepare for lectures or study after class to fill in any gaps in their notes. And, come exam time, students can binge-watch the entire canon of constitutional law in about twelve hours.
Author: Susan Dudley Gold
Publisher: Cavendish Square Publishing, LLC
ISBN: 1627123954
Category : Juvenile Nonfiction
Languages : en
Pages : 147
Get Book Here
Book Description
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a free press and free speech, but those rights are not unlimited. In Protecting Hate Speech: R.A.V. v. St. Paul, award-winning author Susan Dudley Gold looks at the issues involved when the Minnesota city of St. Paul tried to ban hate speech within its borders. The entertaining account of the case explores the fine line legislators must walk when putting restrictions on free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case has become a testament to the sanctity of the First Amendment, even when it protects hateful speech and symbol acts that most Americans despise.
Author: Jeremy Waldron
Publisher: Harvard University Press
ISBN: 0674069919
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 271
Get Book Here
Book Description
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, undermines a public good that can and should be protected: the basic assurance of inclusion in society for all members. A social environment polluted by anti-gay leaflets, Nazi banners, and burning crosses sends an implicit message to the targets of such hatred: your security is uncertain and you can expect to face humiliation and discrimination when you leave your home. Free-speech advocates boast of despising what racists say but defending to the death their right to say it. Waldron finds this emphasis on intellectual resilience misguided and points instead to the threat hate speech poses to the lives, dignity, and reputations of minority members. Finding support for his view among philosophers of the Enlightenment, Waldron asks us to move beyond knee-jerk American exceptionalism in our debates over the serious consequences of hateful speech.
Author: David M. Rabban
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
ISBN: 9780521655378
Category : History
Languages : en
Pages : 426
Get Book Here
Book Description
Most American historians and legal scholars incorrectly assume that controversies and litigation about free speech began abruptly during World War I. However, there was substantial debate about free speech issues between the Civil War and World War I. Important free speech controversies, often involving the activities of sex reformers and labor unions, preceded the Espionage Act of 1917. Scores of legal cases presented free speech issues to Justices Holmes and Brandeis. A significant organization, the Free Speech League, became a principled defender of free expression two decades before the establishment of the ACLU in 1920. World War I produced a major transformation in American liberalism. Progressives who had viewed constitutional rights as barriers to needed social reforms came to appreciate the value of political dissent during its wartime repression. They subsequently misrepresented the prewar judicial hostility to free speech claims and obscured prior libertarian defenses of free speech based on commitments to individual autonomy.
Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 110
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Franklyn Saul Haiman
Publisher: SIU Press
ISBN:
Category : Freedom of speech
Languages : en
Pages : 130
Get Book Here
Book Description
What can a democratic society reasonably do about the perplexing problems of racial intolerance, sexual harassment, incitements to violence, and invasions of privacy? Is it possible to preserve the constitutional ideal of free expression while protecting the community from those who would trample on the rights of others? Franklyn S. Haiman critically examines the reasoning behind recent efforts to prohibit certain forms of speech and explores the possible consequences to democracy of such moves. Speech act theory, well known to scholars of rhetoric, communication, and language, underlies this emerging trend in judicial and legislative thinking. The idea that "words are deeds," first articulated in language philosophy by Wittgenstein and elaborated by J. L. Austin and John Searle, is being invoked by some members of the legal community to target objectionable speech. For example, speech codes on some college campuses prohibit racist, sexist, and homophobic expression, and attempts have been made through local laws to classify pornography as a form of sex discrimination. By defining certain kinds of arguably immoral symbolic behavior such as hate speech, obscenity, or portrayals of violence as acts rather than as pure speech, speech act advocates make it easier to argue that such conduct should be subject to social control through the law. Unlike totalitarian or theocratic societies that see no difference between their concept of morality and the law, however, a democracy must make a distinction between what it regards as immoral and what it makes illegal. Haiman maintains that in the realm of symbolic behavior the line between them should be drawn as closely as possible to expression that results in the most serious, direct, immediate, and physical harm to others. Thus, he joins with former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in concluding that, absent an emergency, more speech, not enforced silence, should be the aim of a free society.
Author: Alex Brown
Publisher: Routledge
ISBN: 1317502361
Category : Philosophy
Languages : en
Pages : 380
Get Book Here
Book Description
Hate speech law can be found throughout the world. But it is also the subject of numerous principled arguments, both for and against. These principles invoke a host of morally relevant features (e.g., liberty, health, autonomy, security, non-subordination, the absence of oppression, human dignity, the discovery of truth, the acquisition of knowledge, self-realization, human excellence, civic dignity, cultural diversity and choice, recognition of cultural identity, intercultural dialogue, participation in democratic self-government, being subject only to legitimate rule) and practical considerations (e.g., efficacy, the least restrictive alternative, chilling effects). The book develops and then critically examines these various principled arguments. It also attempts to de-homogenize hate speech law into different clusters of laws/regulations/codes that constrain uses of hate speech, so as to facilitate a more nuanced examination of the principled arguments. Finally, it argues that it is morally fitting for judicial and legislative judgments about the overall warrant of hate speech law to reflect principled compromise. Principled compromise is characterized not merely by compromise over matters of principled concern but also by compromise which is itself governed by ideals of moral duty or civic virtue (e.g., reciprocity, equality, and mutual respect). The Open Access version of this book, available at https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315714899, has been made available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 license.
Author: Paul Siegel
Publisher: paul siegel
ISBN: 9780742553873
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 640
Get Book Here
Book Description
Siegel's student-friendly approach, lively writing style, and extensive illustrations including case-specific photos and one-of-a-kind cartoons present communication law in a highly accessible way. He gives a clear overview of the American judiciary system and covers the key areas, including First Amendment principles, common laws, constitutional considerations, libel laws, privacy factors, copyright and trademark, advertising, protecting news sources, obscenity laws, broadcast regulations, the Internet, and more. This is an engaging text for courses in communication law and media law.
Author: Valerie C. Brannon
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN: 9781092635158
Category : Law
Languages : en
Pages : 50
Get Book Here
Book Description
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.
