The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in AmericaOxford University Press, 1986 - 295 páginas The First Amendment provides Americans with a far broader protection of free speech than that available in any other Western democracy, Lee Bollinger notes, and yet other democracies are not seen as significantly less open or more restrictive that the United States. Why do Americans guarantee people the right to advocate the overthrow of the government or advance racist or genocidal ideas? Why, for example, protect the right of neo-Nazis to march in predominantly Jewish Skokie, Illinois? In The Tolerant Society, Bollinger offers a masterful critique of the major theories of freedom of expression, and offers an alternative explanation. Traditional justifications for protecting extremist speech have turned largely on the inherent value of self-expression, maintaining that the benefits of the free interchange of ideas include the greater likelihood of serving truth and of promoting wise decisions in a democracy. Bollinger finds these theories persuasive but inadequate. Buttrressing his argument with references to the Skokie case and many other examples, as well as a careful analysis of the primary literature on free speech, he contends that the real value of toloeration of extremist speech lies in the extraordinary self-control toward antisocial behavior that it elicits: society is stengthened by the exercise of tolerance, he maintains. The problem of finding an appropriate response--especially when emotions make measured response difficult--is common to all social interaction, Bollinger points out, and there are useful lesons to be learned from withholding punishment even for what is conceded to be bad behavior. About the Author: Lee C. Bollinger is Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. |
Dentro del libro
Resultados 1-3 de 79
Página 51
... - ciety , we might have to accept the minimal limit we have just noted and we might choose to accept more . But our acceptance of that greater limit would certainly not automatically be com- The Classical Model and Its Limits 51.
... - ciety , we might have to accept the minimal limit we have just noted and we might choose to accept more . But our acceptance of that greater limit would certainly not automatically be com- The Classical Model and Its Limits 51.
Página 76
... Limits Even though in any particular case the positive benefits from having certain speech may not exceed the injury that protection of it will bring , there may be other reasons for protecting that speech - strategic reasons . This is ...
... Limits Even though in any particular case the positive benefits from having certain speech may not exceed the injury that protection of it will bring , there may be other reasons for protecting that speech - strategic reasons . This is ...
Página 176
... limits ? In chapter 2 we began discussing the complex ways in which speech - more accurately , imposing limits on a society's use of legal restrictions against speech - might bring harm to the so- ciety . We sought a more complete ...
... limits ? In chapter 2 we began discussing the complex ways in which speech - more accurately , imposing limits on a society's use of legal restrictions against speech - might bring harm to the so- ciety . We sought a more complete ...
Contenido
Introduction | 3 |
Enslaved to Freedom? | 12 |
The Classical Model and Its Limits | 43 |
Derechos de autor | |
Otras 6 secciones no mostradas
Otras ediciones - Ver todas
The Tolerant Society Lee C. Bollinger Dean University of Michigan Law School Vista previa limitada - 1986 |
Términos y frases comunes
actually Amendment appear argument attitudes basic become behavior beliefs benefits capacity chapter citizens claim clear commitment concern considered constitutional context course Court danger decide decision defendants desire developed discussion doubt effect example excessive expression extreme fact fear feelings free speech principle freedom function give hand harm Holmes human idea important impulse individual injury intellectual interest intolerance involved issues Jews judges judgment judicial kind least less liberty limits majority matter meaning Meiklejohn mind moral nature Nazi noted offered opinion particular perhaps political position possible potential present Press problem prohibit protection provides question reason regarded regulation response result risk role rule seeking seems sense significance simply Skokie social society speak speech activity statement theory thought tolerance true truth understanding United University values York