Hate speech (Plus de 2 600 résultats)

Hardback. Etat : Good. HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about hate speech vs. free speech, showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that hate speech which has no generally accepted definition is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm, but government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as hate speech. Hate speech censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that hate speech laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion; predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous counterspeech and activism.…

Hardback. Etat : Very Good. HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about hate speech vs. free speech, showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that hate speech which has no generally accepted definition is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm, but government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as hate speech. Hate speech censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that hate speech laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion; predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous counterspeech and activism.…

Etat : very_good. Book is in very good condition and may include minimal underlining highlighting. The book can also include "From the library of" labels. May not contain miscellaneous items toys, dvds, etc. . We offer 100% money back guarantee and 24 7 customer service.

Paperback. Etat : Good. Referring to a situation in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, which was home to many survivors of the Holocaust in the 1970s, and where American Nazi sympathizers wished to demonstrate, the author of this book argues that freedom of speech must be defended even in the most abhorrent of circumstances.…

Paperback. Etat : Very Good. Referring to a situation in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, which was home to many survivors of the Holocaust in the 1970s, and where American Nazi sympathizers wished to demonstrate, the author of this book argues that freedom of speech must be defended even in the most abhorrent of circumstances.…

Etat : good. The book is in good condition with all pages and cover intact, including the dust jacket if originally issued. The spine may show light wear. Pages may contain some notes or highlighting, and there might be a "From the library of" label. Boxed set packaging, shrink wrap, or included media like CDs may be missing.…

Etat : very_good.

Hardcover. Etat : Very Good. First Edition. It's a well-cared-for item that has seen limited use. The item may show minor signs of wear. All the text is legible, with all pages included. It may have slight markings and/or highlighting.

paperback. Etat : Very Good.

Hardcover. Etat : Very Good. First Edition. With dust jacket. It's a well-cared-for item that has seen limited use. The item may show minor signs of wear. All the text is legible, with all pages included. It may have slight markings and/or highlighting.

Paperback. Etat : Good. From celebrated public intellectual, New York Times bestselling author, and ?America?s most famous professor? (BookPage) comes an urgent and sharply observed look at freedom of speech and the First Amendment offering a ?nonpartisan take on what it does and doesn?t protect and what kind of speech it should and shouldn?t regulate? (Publishers Weekly). How does the First Amendment really work? Is it a principle or a value? What is hate speech and should it always be banned? Are we free to declare our religious beliefs in the public square? What role, if any, should companies like Facebook play in policing the exchange of thoughts, ideas, and opinions? With clarity and power, Stanley Fish explores these complex questions in The First. From the rise of fake news, to the role of tech companies in monitoring content (including the President?s tweets), to Colin Kaepernick?s kneeling protest, First Amendment controversies continue to dominate the news cycle. Across America, college campus administrators are being forced to balance free speech against demands for safe spaces and trigger warnings. With ?thoughtful, dense provocations that will require close attention? (Kirkus Reviews), Fish ultimately argues that freedom of speech is a double-edged concept; it frees us from constraints, but it also frees us to say and do terrible things. Urgent and controversial, The First is sure to ruffle feathers, spark dialogue, and shine new light on one of America?s most cherished?and debated?constitutional rights.…

paperback. Etat : Good.

Etat : very_good. Fast Free Shipping â" Very Good condition book with a firm cover and clean pages. Shows normal use and some light wear or limited notes markings. A solid, nice copy to enjoy.

Etat : good. Fast Free Shipping â" Good condition. It may show normal signs of use, such as light writing, highlighting, or library markings, but all pages are intact and the book is fully readable. A solid, complete copy that's ready to enjoy.

Etat : Good. A sound copy with only light wear. Overall a solid copy at a great price.

Paperback. Etat : Good. A controversial argument for reconsidering the limits of free speech Swirling in the midst of the resurgence of neo-Nazi demonstrations, hate speech, and acts of domestic terrorism are uncomfortable questions about the limits of free speech. The United States stands apart from many other countries in that citizens have the power to say virtually anything without legal repercussions. But, in the case of white supremacy, does the First Amendment demand that we defend Nazis? In Must We Defend Nazis?, legal experts Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic argue that it should not. Updated to consider the white supremacy demonstrations and counter-protests in Charlottesville and debates about hate speech on campus and on the internet, the book offers a concise argument against total, unchecked freedom of speech. Delgado and Stefancic instead call for a system of free speech that takes into account the harms that hate speech can inflict upon disempowered, marginalized people. They examine the prevailing arguments against regulating speech, and show that they all have answers. They also show how limiting free speech would work in a legal framework and offer suggestions for activist lawyers and judges interested in approaching the hate speech controversy intelligently. As citizens are confronting free speech in contention with equal dignity, access, and respect, Must We Defend Nazis? puts aside clichés that clutter First Amendment thinking, and presents a nuanced position that recognizes the needs of our increasingly diverse society.…

Etat : Very Good. Item in very good condition! Textbooks may not include supplemental items i.e. CDs, access codes etc.

paperback. Etat : Very Good.

Paperback. Etat : Very Good. The First Amendment protects even the most offensive forms of expression: racial slurs, hateful religious propaganda, and cross-burning. No other county in the world offers the same kind of protection to offensive speech. How did this free speech tradition develop? Hate Speech provides the first comprehensive account of the history of the hate speech controversy in the United States. Samuel Walker examines the issue, from the conflicts over the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and American Nazi groups in the 1930s, to the famous Skokie episode in 1977-78, and the campus culture wars of the 1990s. The author argues that the civil rights movement played a central role in developing this country's strong free speech tradition. The courts were very concerned about protecting the provocative and even offensive forms of expression by civil rights forces. Civil rights groups, therefore, preferred to protect rather than restrict offensive speech-even if it meant protecting racist speech. Samuel Walker is Kiewit Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. His previous publications include In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the American Civil Liberties Union.…

Paperback. Etat : Good. The First Amendment protects even the most offensive forms of expression: racial slurs, hateful religious propaganda, and cross-burning. No other county in the world offers the same kind of protection to offensive speech. How did this free speech tradition develop? Hate Speech provides the first comprehensive account of the history of the hate speech controversy in the United States. Samuel Walker examines the issue, from the conflicts over the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s and American Nazi groups in the 1930s, to the famous Skokie episode in 1977-78, and the campus culture wars of the 1990s. The author argues that the civil rights movement played a central role in developing this country's strong free speech tradition. The courts were very concerned about protecting the provocative and even offensive forms of expression by civil rights forces. Civil rights groups, therefore, preferred to protect rather than restrict offensive speech-even if it meant protecting racist speech. Samuel Walker is Kiewit Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. His previous publications include In Defense of American Liberties: A History of the American Civil Liberties Union.…

Hardback. Etat : Very Good. HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about hate speech vs. free speech, showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that hate speech which has no generally accepted definition is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm, but government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as hate speech. Hate speech censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that hate speech laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion; predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous counterspeech and activism.…

Hardback. Etat : Good. HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about hate speech vs. free speech, showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that hate speech which has no generally accepted definition is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm, but government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as hate speech. Hate speech censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that hate speech laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion; predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous counterspeech and activism.…

paperback. Etat : Fine. LIKE NEW!!! Has a red or black remainder mark on bottom/exterior edge of pages.

paperback. Etat : Very Good. Very Good Condition - May show some limited signs of wear and may have a remainder mark. Pages and dust cover are intact and not marred by notes or highlighting.

Paperback. Etat : Good. Referring to a situation in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, which was home to many survivors of the Holocaust in the 1970s, and where American Nazi sympathizers wished to demonstrate, the author of this book argues that freedom of speech must be defended even in the most abhorrent of circumstances.…

Paperback. Etat : Very Good. Referring to a situation in the Chicago suburb of Skokie, which was home to many survivors of the Holocaust in the 1970s, and where American Nazi sympathizers wished to demonstrate, the author of this book argues that freedom of speech must be defended even in the most abhorrent of circumstances.…

Paperback. Etat : Fair. Ten years after publication of the first edition of Timothy Shiell's path breaking study, restrictions on faculty and student speech on college campuses continue to be hotly contested in the mainstream media, on the internet, in the journals of academic disciplines, in courtrooms, classrooms, and chat rooms. This revised edition adds substantial new material that updates cases and conflicts during the past decade, expands the original's coverage of the relevant literature, and dramatically reinforces Shiell's original argument. In the first edition Shiell noted that, despite commitments to free speech and the open exchange of ideas, American colleges and universities had increasingly ignored such principles by implementing numerous hate speech codes designed to protect students from racial, sexual, and other forms of harassment. Taking their cue from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees the right to a non hostile workplace environment, those regulations had posed seemingly unresolvable conflicts between the ideals of free speech and equal protection. Shiell explored both sides of the fiery debate over campus hate speech codes to bring out their philosophical and legal underpinnings, clarifying classic free speech arguments as well as the ideas of harm and hostile environment, and analyzing numerous case histories. Pointing out that Title VII wasn't meant to apply to academia, Shiell also encouraged readers to consider the role of the courts in eliminating prejudice in this setting and presented a strong argument for the form the codes themselves should ideally take. The new edition adds substantial new material on developments concerning the Deterrence Argument, the hostile environment approach, new judicial decisions, and the International Argument. It also updates the comprehensive bibliography and list of legal decisions, significantly increasing the value of both for scholars and policymakers alike. Shiell eloquently makes the case that campus speech codes - no matter how well grounded in history, law, or philosophy - have tended to be overbroad, arbitrarily enforced, and used selectively to protect only certain groups at the expense of others. For that reason especially, his book will continue to challenge academics and general readers to reconsider how we deal with this important issue.…

Paperback. Etat : Very Good. No Jacket. Former library book; May have limited writing in cover pages. Pages are unmarked. ~ ThriftBooks: Read More, Spend Less.

Paperback. Etat : Very Good. No Jacket. May have limited writing in cover pages. Pages are unmarked. ~ ThriftBooks: Read More, Spend Less.

Paperback. Etat : Good. No Jacket. Pages can have notes/highlighting. Spine may show signs of wear. ~ ThriftBooks: Read More, Spend Less.