Free Speech After 9 11

This volume examines and compares the changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, focusing on the US, UK, and Australia.

Although there has been a lot written about how counter-terrorism laws impact on human rights and civil liberties, most of this work has focussed on the most obvious or egregious kinds of human rights abrogation, such as extended detention, torture, and extraordinary rendition. Far less has been written about the complex ways in which Western governments have placed new and far-reaching limitations on freedom of speech in this context since 9/11. This book compares three liberal democracies - the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, in particular showing the commonalities and similarities in what has occurred in each country, and the changes in the appropriate parameters of freedom of speech in the counter-terrorism context since 9/11, achieved both in policy change and the justification for that change. In all three countries much speech has been criminalized in ways that were considered anachronistic, or inappropriate, in comparable policy areas prior to 9/11. This is particularly interesting because other works have suggested that the United States' unique protection of freedom of speech in the First Amendment has prevented speech being limited in that country in ways that have been pursued in others. This book shows that this kind of argument misses the detail of the policy change that has occurred, and privileges a textual reading over a more comprehensive policy-based understanding of the changes that have occurred. The author argues that we are now living a new-normal for freedom of speech, within which restrictions on speech that once would have been considered aberrant, overreaching, and impermissible are now considered ordinary, necessary, and justified as long as they occur in the counter-terrorism context. This change is persistent, and it has far reaching implications for the future of this foundational freedom.

"A unique collection of sources that reveal the tensions between the desire to protect free speech and the necessity of protecting the nation. the anthology was developed with an understanding that readers need to engage this issue using a variety of resources - speeches, congressional testimony, reports, press releases, news articls, op-eds, court decisions, and legal briefs - that high-light all sides of the debate. An original essay offers historical perspective on the conflict between national security and free speech." --

Following the events of 9/11, rashly conceived anti-terror laws were introduced that put civil liberties at risk. Free Speech in Fearful Times offers a unique perspective on how the laws created to "protect" us can actually harm us.

"Freedom of Information in a Post 9-11 World" is, to date, the first international scholarly examination of the impact of the terrorist attack on the United States in terms of how it may alter academic and corporate research, as well as the sharing of information generated by that research, by international colleagues in technological fields. The collection of essays brings together a widely varied panel of communications experts from different backgrounds and cultures to focus their expertise on the ramifications of this world-changing event. Drawing upon the related but separate disciplines of law, interpersonal communication, semiotics, rhetoric, management, information sciences, and education, the collection adds new insight to the potential future challenges high-tech professionals and academics will face in a global community that now seems much less communal than it did prior to September 11, 2001.

As the world faces the seemingly constant threat of terrorism, unprecedented corporate expansion, and the flourishing of new technologies, the nature and boundaries of free speech face new and mounting crises. This volume explores the challenges facing free speech post September 11, 2001, including the Patriot Act, commercial free speech, and consolidation of the media.

Does America have a free press? Many who say yes appeal to First Amendment protections against censorship. Sam Lebovic shows that free speech, on its own, is not sufficient to produce a free press and helps us understand the crises that beset the press amid media consolidation, a secretive national security state, and the daily newspaper’s decline.

This annotated document collection surveys the history and evolution of laws and attitudes regarding free speech and censorship in the United States, with a special emphasis on contemporary events and controversies related to the First Amendment. The United States' collective understanding of First Amendment freedoms was formed by more than 200 years of tensions between the power of word and the power of the government. During that time, major laws and legal decisions defined the circumstances and degree to which personal expression could be rightfully expressed—and rightfully limited. This struggle to define the parameters of free speech continues today. Vibrant and passionate debates about First Amendment limitations once inspired by the dissemination of birth control information now address such issues as kneeling during the national anthem, removing controversial books from public libraries, attempts by the Trump administration to discredit the press, and disseminating false or hateful information through social media platforms. By exploring diverse examples of censorship victories and triumphs of free expression, readers will better understand the enormous impact of First Amendment freedoms on American society.