Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff is a woman caught up in extraordinary times. She has been hectored, vilified, persecuted and prosecuted for the grave offense of telling the truth about Mohammed and his "marriage" to a very young child as related in Islamic sacred literature. Her case has exposed the grave danger to freedom of speech (and thus, freedom of thought itself) in Europe. She fought bravely in the legal arena through the Austrian courts and on to the European Court of Human Rights to defend her freedom (and by extension the rights of all Europeans), to freely voice her opinion. She lost. In Europe, human rights are no longer thought to be intrinsic to the individual as a gift given by God, but are rather thought to be a gift of the state, which can be limited or revoked at will. This is a dangerous development and it could be coming to America. Her book serves as a warning call. It begins by relating her life's odyssey, living in a number of Muslim countries even as a young child. Her father served in the Austrian diplomatic corps. She was living in Iran when the Islamic Revolution broke out. Later, she too followed the path of diplomatic service and gained extensive experience working in the Muslim world. She was living in Kuwait when Saddam Hussein invaded. Elisabeth knows whereof she speaks. The second half of the book consists of expert analyses of her legal case by Robert Spencer, Clare M. Lopez, Stephen Coughlin, Grégor Puppinck, Christian Zeitz, Henrik R. Clausen, Christine Brim and Aaron Rhodes. These experts testify to the wrongness of the courts' repeated decisions and to the righteousness of her cause. Freedom of expression the basis for all freedom. There is no other freedom without it.

Arming Americans to defend the truth from today's war on facts “In what could be the timeliest book of the year, Rauch aims to arm his readers to engage with reason in an age of illiberalism.” —Newsweek A New York Times Book Review Editors' Choice Disinformation. Trolling. Conspiracies. Social media pile-ons. Campus intolerance. On the surface, these recent additions to our daily vocabulary appear to have little in common. But together, they are driving an epistemic crisis: a multi-front challenge to America's ability to distinguish fact from fiction and elevate truth above falsehood. In 2016 Russian trolls and bots nearly drowned the truth in a flood of fake news and conspiracy theories, and Donald Trump and his troll armies continued to do the same. Social media companies struggled to keep up with a flood of falsehoods, and too often didn't even seem to try. Experts and some public officials began wondering if society was losing its grip on truth itself. Meanwhile, another new phenomenon appeared: “cancel culture.” At the push of a button, those armed with a cellphone could gang up by the thousands on anyone who ran afoul of their sanctimony. In this pathbreaking book, Jonathan Rauch reaches back to the parallel eighteenth-century developments of liberal democracy and science to explain what he calls the “Constitution of Knowledge”—our social system for turning disagreement into truth. By explicating the Constitution of Knowledge and probing the war on reality, Rauch arms defenders of truth with a clearer understanding of what they must protect, why they must do—and how they can do it. His book is a sweeping and readable description of how every American can help defend objective truth and free inquiry from threats as far away as Russia and as close as the cellphone.

The analytic/synthetic distinction looks simple. It is a distinction between two different kinds of sentence. Synthetic sentences are true in part because of the way the world is, and in part because of what they mean. Analytic sentences - like all bachelors are unmarried and triangles have three sides - are different. They are true in virtue of meaning, so no matter what the world is like, as long as the sentence means what it does, it will be true. This distinction seems powerful because analytic sentences seem to be knowable in a special way. One can know that all bachelors are unmarried, for example, just by thinking about what it means. But many twentieth-century philosophers, with Quine in the lead, argued that there were no analytic sentences, that the idea of analyticity didn't even make sense, and that the analytic/synthetic distinction was therefore an illusion. Others couldn't see how there could fail to be a distinction, however ingenious the arguments of Quine and his supporters. But since the heyday of the debate, things have changed in the philosophy of language. Tools have been refined, confusions cleared up, and most significantly, many philosophers now accept a view of language - semantic externalism - on which it is possible to see how the distinction could fail. One might be tempted to think that ultimately the distinction has fallen for reasons other than those proposed in the original debate. In Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Gillian Russell argues that it hasn't. Using the tools of contemporary philosophy of language, she outlines a view of analytic sentences which is compatible with semantic externalism and defends that view against the old Quinean arguments. She then goes on to draw out the surprising epistemological consequences of her approach.

Detailed yet highly readable, this book explores essential and illuminating primary source documents that provide insights into the history, development, and current conceptions of the First Amendment to the Constitution. The freedom to speak one's mind is a subject of great importance to most Americans but especially to students, minorities, and those who are socially or economically disadvantaged—individuals whose voices have historically been censored or marginalized in American society. Documents Decoded: Freedom of Speech offers accessible, student-friendly explanations of specific developments in freedom of speech in the United States and carefully excerpted primary documents, making it an indispensable resource for educators seeking to teach the First Amendment and for students wanting to learn more about important free-speech decisions. The chronologically ordered documents explore topics typically covered in American history and government curricula, addressing such contemporary issues as the regulation of online speech, flag desecration, parody, public school student speech, and the Supreme Court's recent decisions on the issue of corporate speech rights.

Includes material on the case of Steve Titus, Ted Bundy, Timothy Hennis, Tony Herrerez, Howard Haupt, Clarence Von Williams, John Demjanjuk, and Tyrone Briggs.