Details
| Size | | Height: | 9.3 in | | Width: | 6.3 in | | Thickness: | 1.2 in | | Weight: | 19.2 oz |
Industry Reviews
Is enduring "hate speech" and "pornography" worth "the price we pay" for free speech? No, say the authors of these essays, many of which were presented at a 1993 conference at the University of Chicago Law School. The essayists include such familiar names as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, and Eleanor Smeal. Most allege that "hate speech" and "pornography" (neither term is defined by the authors or editors) lead to hate crimes and violence against women. Many chastise the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, which struck down that city's antipornography ordinance because, they believe, it may legitimize offensive speech. In the epilog, editors Lederer, a feminist theorist and editor of the anthology Take Back the Night (1980), and Delgado, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, suggest that the Court, with its decisions on hate speech and pornography, "risks becoming an impediment to serious social dialogue." The implication in this volume is that the First Amendment must be emasculated in the cause of eliminating hate crimes and crimes against women. For another view, see Nat Hentoff's Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee (LJ 9/15/92) and Aryeh Neier's Defending My Enemy (LJ 2/1/79). Recommended for academic and large public library collections, particularly where what constitutes free speech is an issue. Sue Kamm, Inglewood P.L., Cal.
Breitman
Given its purpose to be not a debate but a brief this book is an informative survey of left-wing critics of free-speech excesses. Many of the essays were presented at a 1993 conference on ``Speech, Equality and Harm'' at the University of Chicago Law School. The book opens with the voices of victims: a woman forced by her boss to watch pornography; Native Americans objecting to insulting terms like redskin being used for sports teams mascots. Other essays then probe the deleterious impact of pornography and the fact, for example, that hate speech generally accompanies anti-gay hate crimes. A third section explores theory: Lederer (editor of the anthology Take Back the Night) observes how both racist speech and pornography serve to subordinate selected groups; Kimberl? Crenshaw sees the opposition of elites to hate-speech regulations as similar to mass distrust of affirmative action. Some remedies may derive from present law: Marianne Wesson suggests using the tort system to sue pornographers. Others propose new paradigms: Cass Sunstein likens pornography to regulable speech such as misleading advertising. As University of Colorado law professor Delgado suggests, a more nuanced and skeptical view of First Amendment doctrine is emerging. And, as the editors argue, the Supreme Court's reflexive protection of free speech may be behind the times. (Sept.)
Bernstein
Given its purpose to be not a debate but a brief this book is an informative survey of left-wing critics of free-speech excesses. Many of the essays were presented at a 1993 conference on ``Speech, Equality and Harm'' at the University of Chicago Law School. The book opens with the voices of victims: a woman forced by her boss to watch pornography; Native Americans objecting to insulting terms like redskin being used for sports teams mascots. Other essays then probe the deleterious impact of pornography and the fact, for example, that hate speech generally accompanies anti-gay hate crimes. A third section explores theory: Lederer (editor of the anthology Take Back the Night) observes how both racist speech and pornography serve to subordinate selected groups; Kimberl‚ Crenshaw sees the opposition of elites to hate-speech regulations as similar to mass distrust of affirmative action. Some remedies may derive from present law: Marianne Wesson suggests using the tort system to sue pornographers. Others propose new paradigms: Cass Sunstein likens pornography to regulable speech such as misleading advertising. As University of Colorado law professor Delgado suggests, a more nuanced and skeptical view of First Amendment doctrine is emerging. And, as the editors argue, the Supreme Court's reflexive protection of free speech may be behind the times. (Sept.)
Publishers Weekly (07/24/1995)
Given its purpose to be not a debate but a brief this book is an informative survey of left-wing critics of free-speech excesses. Many of the essays were presented at a 1993 conference on ``Speech, Equality and Harm'' at the University of Chicago Law School. The book opens with the voices of victims: a woman forced by her boss to watch pornography; Native Americans objecting to insulting terms like redskin being used for sports teams mascots. Other essays then probe the deleterious impact of pornography and the fact, for example, that hate speech generally accompanies anti-gay hate crimes. A third section explores theory: Lederer (editor of the anthology Take Back the Night) observes how both racist speech and pornography serve to subordinate selected groups; Kimberl¿ Crenshaw sees the opposition of elites to hate-speech regulations as similar to mass distrust of affirmative action. Some remedies may derive from present law: Marianne Wesson suggests using the tort system to sue pornographers. Others propose new paradigms: Cass Sunstein likens pornography to regulable speech such as misleading advertising. As University of Colorado law professor Delgado suggests, a more nuanced and skeptical view of First Amendment doctrine is emerging. And, as the editors argue, the Supreme Court's reflexive protection of free speech may be behind the times. (Sept.)
Publishers Weekly (07/24/1995)
|
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
All rights reserved.
