"This book argues that hate speech is not protected. Based on an examination of Supreme Court case law and First Amendment theory, the book finds that hate speech lies outside the Supreme Court's hierarchy of speech protection because it advances no ideas of social value"--;"Hate speech has been a societal problem for many years and has seen a resurgence recently alongside political divisiveness and technologies that ease and accelerate the spread of messages. Methods to protect individuals and groups from hate speech have eluded lawmakers as the call for restrictions or bans on such speech are confronted by claims of First Amendment protection. Problematic speech, the argument goes, should be confronted by more speech rather than by restriction. Debate over the extent of First Amendment protection is based on two bodies of law--the practical, precedent determined by the Supreme Court, and the theoretical framework of First Amendment jurisprudence. In Hate Speech is Not Free: The Case Against Constitutional Protection, W. Wat Hopkins argues that the prevailing thought that hate is protected by both case law and theory is incorrect. Within the Supreme Court's established hierarchy of speech protection, hate speech falls to the lowest level, deserving no protection as it does not advance ideas containing social value. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's cases addressing protected and unprotected speech set forth a clear rationale for excommunicating hate speech from First Amendment protection." --

"Why We Vote is a bold and sometimes daring reconstruction of judicial doctrine giving expression to the democratic aspirations of the Constitution. It shifts the focus from equal protection to the freedom that democracy generates-the right of those who are ruled to choose their rulers. It explains why the protection of that right requires the extension of the franchise to all citizens. It provides the grounds for the rules that facilitate, as a purely practical matter, the exercise of the right to vote, ensure that the vote of one is equal to that of another, and guarantees feasible access to the ballot for independent candidates and new political parties"--

In the Past and Present, They’ve Fought Book Bans and Censorship.

Is the output of generative AI entitled to First Amendment protection? We’re inclined to say yes. Even though current AI programs are of course not people and d

The American Bar Association may soon require law schools to adopt free speech policies, a change that follows several high-profile campus incidents in which students disrupted controversial speakers.

"A bold new assessment of the multipronged attack on American rights, and how to push back, from experts at the Fletcher School at Tufts and the Carr Center at Harvard. In fifteen accessible chapters dealing with voting rights, freedom of speech, criminal justice, gun rights, LGBTQ+ rights, disability rights, religious freedom, privacy, immigration, and more, three renowned thought-leaders, including a former assistant secretary of state, John Shattuck, Sushma Raman, and Mathias Risse present a comprehensive account of the current state of rights in America-along with concrete recommendations to policy makers and citizens for reimagining them"--

"The objective of this edited volume is to shed light upon K-12 perspectives of various school stakeholders in the current unique context of increasing political polarization and heightened teacher and student activism. It is grounded in academic freedom case law and the majority of opinion of the Supreme Court in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) that held that certain forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment. Justice Fortas wrote in the majority opinion that "it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This volume is timely and instructive, as protections afforded by the First Amendment are a topic of enduring concern, with such freedoms requiring vigilant advocacy and protection from each generation. Paulo Freire stated, "Citizenship is not obtained by chance: It is a construction that, never finished, demands we fight for it" (1998, p. 90). There is confusion and much debate in and outside of schools about how and when these and other rights described in the First Amendment may or may not be limited, and the time is now to clarify the place of such rights in public education. At the Schoolhouse Gate is divided into three sections: Foundations, Case Studies of Rights in Schools, and Choices to Act. The "Foundations" section presents the case law pertaining to the rights of both teachers and students, setting the tone for what presently is permissible and chronicling the ongoing struggle with defining rights and responsibilities in schools. In "Case Studies of Rights in Schools," various authors examine teacher and student interactions with rights and responsibilities in schools, including the interest of students in participating with their teachers in the democratic experiment of schooling, the promise of student-led conferences, a new teacher's success with democratizing her classroom, and student views of news and technology. "Choices to Act" includes a portrait of teacher activism during the Oklahoma Walkout, a general counsel's advice to teachers for availing themselves of their rights, a story of a civic education curriculum generating student agency, and vignettes of two public high school students who took action in their schools and communities"--

​​​​​​​​Each episode of dotEDU presents a deep dive into a major public policy issue impacting college campuses and students across the country. Hosts from ACE, joined by guest experts, lead you through thought-provoking conversations on topics such as campus free speech, diversity in admissions, college costs and affordability, and more.

"When Simon Tam started an American dance rock band called The Slants, he didn't realize that he was starting an entire movement around freedom of expression and discussions on identity. The band flipped stereotypes with their bombastic live shows and community activism. But when Simon applied to register a trademark on the band's name, the government dragged him all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. [This book] is the story of an indomitable spirit who so believes in the idea of justice that he's willing to risk everything along the way for the dignity of self-identity. Simon provides a deeply personal account that will take you from anime conventions to the Surpreme Court, all in the name of justice. The story provides a raw look at our legal system with unflinching honesty and offers timely insights on freedom of speech, how to connect with others we disagree with, and the power of music."--

A chilling look at post 9/11 America: a woman visited by the Secret Service because of her anti-war sign; a woman fired from her job for her car bumper sticker; a school classroom entered after midnight by police, who photographed the students' anti-war artwork. Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine, tells the civil liberty stories of ordinary Americans whose rights have been trampled on and reveals an America that is becoming less and less free.

"Beginning with the Alien Friends Act of 1798, the United States passed laws in the name of national security to bar or expel foreigners based on their beliefs and associations-although these laws sometimes conflict with First Amendment protections of freedom of speech and association or contradict America's self-image as a nation of immigrants. The government has continually used ideological exclusions and deportations of noncitizens to suppress dissent and radicalism throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, from the War on Anarchy to the Cold War to the War on Terror. In Threat of Dissent-the first social, political, and legal history of ideological exclusion and deportation in the United States-Julia Rose Kraut delves into the intricacies of major court decisions and legislation without losing sight of the people involved. We follow the cases of immigrants and foreign-born visitors, including activists, scholars, and artists such as Emma Goldman, Ernest Mandel, Carlos Fuentes, Charlie Chaplin, and John Lennon. Kraut also highlights lawyers, including Clarence Darrow and Carol Weiss King, as well as organizations, like the ACLU and PEN America, who challenged the constitutionality of ideological exclusions and deportations under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, however, frequently interpreted restrictions under immigration law and upheld the government's authority. By reminding us of the legal vulnerability foreigners face on the basis of their beliefs, expressions, and associations, Kraut calls our attention to the ways that ideological exclusion and deportation reflect fears of subversion and serve as tools of political repression in the United States"--

Examines how free speech in the United States has been corrupted by the politically powerful and how the contemporary landscape of social media and social polarization have eroded the safeguards built into the Constitution to protect speech.

The GroundTruth Project is a nonprofit media organization that seeks to build the capacity for freedom of expression in developing countries around the world by helping to support a new generation of correspondents who can work together across different media platforms and cultural backgrounds.   GroundTruth focuses on issues of social justice including human rights,