Nadine Strossen

Reissued with a new foreword and introduction by the author Traditional explanations of why pornography must be defended from would-be censors have concentrated on censorship's adverse impacts on free speech and sexual autonomy. In contrast, Nadine Strossen focuses on the women's rights-centered rationale for defending pornography.

Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights

Defending Pornography

"Dispelling rampant confusion about "hate speech," this book explains how U.S. law appropriately distinguishes between punishable and protected discriminatory speech. It shows that more speech-restrictive laws consistently have suppressed vital expression about public issues, targeting minority viewpoints and speakers; and that "counterspeech" has more effectively promoted equality and societal harmony"--

Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship

Hate

Argues that censorship against "pornography" actually harms women rather than protecting them--by weakening efforts to punish sex offenders and repressing information vital to women's sexuality, health, and reproductive autonomy

Named a Notable Book by The New York Times Book Review in 1995, Defending Pornography examines a key question that has divided feminists for decades: is censoring pornography good or bad for women? Nadine Strossen makes a powerful case that increasing government power to censor sexual expression, beyond the limits that the First Amendment sensibly permits (for example, outlawing child pornography) would do more harm than good for women and others who have traditionally been marginalized due to sex or gender, She explains how the very anti-porn laws pushed by some feminists have led to the censorship of LGBTQ+ and feminist works, and she examines the startling connections between anti-porn feminists and right-wing fundamentalists. In an illuminating new Preface, Strossen lays out the multiple current assaults on sexual expression, which continue to come from across the ideological spectrum. She shows that freedom for such expression remains an essential prerequisite for the equality, safety, and dignity of women and sexual/gender minorities.

James Baker

Richard Panchyk

Senator John Kerry

This lively and comprehensive activity book teaches young readers everything they need to know about the nation's highest court. Organized around keystones of the Constitution—including free speech, freedom of religion, civil rights, criminal justice, and property rights—the book juxtaposes historical cases with similar current cases. Presented with opinions from both sides of the court cases, readers can make up their own minds on where they stand on the important issues that have evolved in the Court over the past 200 years. Interviews with prominent politicians, high-court lawyers, and those involved with landmark decisions—including Ralph Nader, Rudolph Giuliani, Mario Cuomo, and Arlen Specter—show the personal impact and far-reaching consequences of the decisions. Fourteen engaging classroom-oriented activities involving violations of civil rights, exercises of free speech, and selecting a classroom Supreme Court bring the issues and cases to life. The first 15 amendments to the Constitution and a glossary of legal terms are also included.

A History with 14 Activities

Our Supreme Court

HATE dispels misunderstandings plaguing our perennial debates about "hate speech vs. free speech," showing that the First Amendment approach promotes free speech and democracy, equality, and societal harmony. We hear too many incorrect assertions that "hate speech" -- which has no generally accepted definition -- is either absolutely unprotected or absolutely protected from censorship. Rather, U.S. law allows government to punish hateful or discriminatory speech in specific contexts when it directly causes imminent serious harm. Yet, government may not punish such speech solely because its message is disfavored, disturbing, or vaguely feared to possibly contribute to some future harm. When U.S. officials formerly wielded such broad censorship power, they suppressed dissident speech, including equal rights advocacy. Likewise, current politicians have attacked Black Lives Matter protests as "hate speech." "Hate speech" censorship proponents stress the potential harms such speech might further: discrimination, violence, and psychic injuries. However, there has been little analysis of whether censorship effectively counters the feared injuries. Citing evidence from many countries, this book shows that "hate speech" laws are at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Their inevitably vague terms invest enforcing officials with broad discretion, and predictably, regular targets are minority views and speakers. Therefore, prominent social justice advocates in the U.S. and beyond maintain that the best way to resist hate and promote equality is not censorship, but rather, vigorous "counterspeech" and activism.

Nadine Strossen

About

Books

Join the club