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 83
Página 47
... protection of speech serves a " collective " in- terest and not , as Chafee had added , any single individual in- terest in self - expression . In the final analysis , “ [ w ] hat is essential is not that everyone shall speak , but that ...
... protection of speech serves a " collective " in- terest and not , as Chafee had added , any single individual in- terest in self - expression . In the final analysis , “ [ w ] hat is essential is not that everyone shall speak , but that ...
Página 57
... protection . Thus , we see that at the same time there is an attenuation in the benefits associated with speech in the extremist speech case , there can simultaneously occur an escalation in the potential harm from the speech itself ...
... protection . Thus , we see that at the same time there is an attenuation in the benefits associated with speech in the extremist speech case , there can simultaneously occur an escalation in the potential harm from the speech itself ...
Página 89
... protection or not , since protection of almost any speech could reasonably occur under either theory , so open - ended are the concepts of the " general good " and of " individual rights . " 41 It is possible , however , to see a larger ...
... protection or not , since protection of almost any speech could reasonably occur under either theory , so open - ended are the concepts of the " general good " and of " individual rights . " 41 It is possible , however , to see a larger ...
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