Drawing on an astonishing array of famous and infamous examples - from the Washington Post to Geraldo!, from gangsta rap to Barney - to reveal highlights and lowlights in the checkered history of the media, bestselling author Ted Schwarz brings remarkable insight and clarity to this increasingly volatile debate.

An informed and practical road map for controlling disinformation, embracing free speech, saving American elections, and protecting democracy "A fresh, persuasive and deeply disturbing overview of the baleful and dangerous impact on the nation of widely disseminated false speech on social media. Richard Hasen, the country’s leading expert about election law, has written this book with flair and clarity.”—Floyd Abrams, author of The Soul of the First Amendment What can be done consistent with the First Amendment to ensure that American voters can make informed election decisions and hold free elections amid a flood of virally spread disinformation and the collapse of local news reporting? How should American society counter the actions of people like former President Donald J. Trump, who used social media to convince millions of his followers to doubt the integrity of U.S. elections and helped foment a violent insurrection? What can we do to minimize disinformation campaigns aimed at suppressing voter turnout? With piercing insight into the current debates over free speech, censorship, and Big Tech’s responsibilities, Richard L. Hasen proposes legal and social measures to restore Americans’ access to reliable information on which democracy depends. In an era when quack COVID treatments and bizarre QAnon theories have entered mainstream, this book explains how to assure both freedom of ideas and a commitment to truth.

False profits of ethical capital is a thought-provoking approach to understanding stakeholder capitalism. Rather than focusing on the inadequacies of corporate responsibility, sustainable investment and consumer politics, this book grapples with the technical and rhetorical functions of ethical capital for profit and accumulation. It provides a unique and eclectic analysis of the political dynamics between finance, capital and labour, offering a refreshing perspective on struggles interlocking social, ecological and economic crises, and suggesting new ways of thinking about sustainability politics.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for first invoking the phrase "clear and present danger." Although the decision upheld the conviction of an individual for criticizing the draft during World War I, it also laid the foundation for our nation's robust protection of free speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The Free Speech Century, two of America's leading First Amendment scholars, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, have gathered a group of the nation's leading constitutional scholars--Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, among others--to evaluate the evolution of free speech doctrine since Schenk and to assess where it might be headed in the future. Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a signal development in the history of constitutional democracies--remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement, remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection it has afforded since the 1960s. Over the course of The First Amendment Century, judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what speech should be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the decision that laid the foundation for America's free speech tradition, The Free Speech Century will serve as an essential resource for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time and why it is so critical both for the United States and for the world today.

After 9/11, the US response to Al-Qaeda - the Global War on Terror - was heavily influenced by the 'clash of civilizations' theory. This book identifies the twenty-first century proponents of the thesis, such as Bernard Lewis and Daniel Pipes, their links to the Bush government and their roles in exploiting hostility between the West and Islam.

The writing focuses on the responsibility media has in todays society. Too frequently, the accuracy, reliability and validity of media stories is questioned. As noted in the introduction, what is the public to believe, and what guidelines are available to weigh what is or is not true? Solid, factual reporting is freely mixed with opinions. It goes on to say that clearly the book is not designed as an unwarranted attack on conventional or tabloid reporting. Rather, its goal is intended to stir public media awareness, allowing readers to examine materials transmitted and absorbed. When we can isolate and categorize media substance, then we capably decide what is factual journalism and whats fiction. The writing focuses on the responsibility media has in todays society. Too frequently, the accuracy, reliability and validity of media stories is questioned. As noted in the introduction, what is the public to believe, and what guidelines are available to weigh what is or is not true? Solid, factual reporting is freely mixed with opinions. It goes on to say that clearly the book is not designed as an unwarranted attack on conventional or tabloid reporting. Rather, its goal is intended to stir public media awareness, allowing readers to examine materials transmitted and absorbed. When we can isolate and categorize media substance, then we capably decide what is factual journalism and whats fiction.

A comprehensive study of proportional analysis in free speech theory, this book challenges US Supreme Court's categorical approach and helps readers understand the breadth of concerns arising from regulations impacting expression.