Table of contents for Censorship / Julia Bauder, book editor.

Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.

Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.

Table of Contents:
Chapter 1: Should Offensive Speech Be Censored?
Chapter Preface
Yes: Offensive Speech Should Be Censored
Racist Hate Speech Should Be Banned by Alexander Tsesis
Hate speech presents a serious threat to the dignity and safety of minority groups 
and to the social and political stability of the United States as a whole. In light of 
this threat the United States should pass laws that prohibit hate speech.
Speech That Incites Religious Hatred Should Be Banned by Julian Baggini
Muslims are subject to serious discrimination just as racial minorities are, and just 
like racial minorities they deserve legal protection. Giving Muslims that 
protection will help to improve strained relations between Muslims and the wider 
community by reassuring Muslims that secular critics of Islam as a religion do not 
hate Muslims as individuals.
Protests at Funerals Should Be Banned by the Columbus Dispatch
Banning protests at funerals is a reasonable restraint on speech that does not 
violate the First Amendment. Limiting protests to appropriate times and places is 
not censorship.
Banning the Desecration of the American Flag Would Not Be Censorship by Steven 
Flag desecration is not a serious danger to the United States, but there would be 
no harm in banning it. An anti-flag-burning amendment to the Constitution would 
not prevent people from expressing any viewpoint; it would only make illegal one 
method through which a viewpoint could be expressed.
No: Offensive Speech Should Not Be Censored
 Racially and Sexually Offensive Speech Should Not Be Banned in the Workplace by 
David E. Bernstein
Many employers place significant restrictions on employees' speech in an attempt 
to avoid expensive harassment suits. Such restrictions are an unacceptable 
violation of employees' First Amendment rights.
Speech That Criticizes Religion Should Not Be Banned by A. C. Grayling
Laws forbidding religious hatred are vague, open to abuse, and are likely to 
discourage important discussions about the roles of religion in Western societies. 
Existing laws that forbid threats and violence regardless of the perpetrator's 
motivation are adequate to protect those who are harassed based on their religion.
Protests at Funerals Should Not Be Banned by Michelle Cottle
Holding anti-gay protests at funerals is disgusting, but that does not mean that 
such protests need to be made illegal. Americans should be self-reliant enough to 
counter offensive speech by themselves without asking the government to step in 
and ban it.
Desecrating the American Flag Should Not Be Banned by John W. Whitehead
Flag-burning is an offensive act to many, but it is a rare act that is not a serious 
threat to the United States. Restricting free speech by banning such offensive 
actions, on the other hand, would threaten America's democratic values and 
Chapter 2: Should High Schools and Universities Censor?
Chapter Preface
Yes: Educational Institutions Should Censor
High Schools May Ban Speech That Attacks Other Students by Justice Stephen Reinhardt
Students' free speech rights are important, but it is more important to make sure 
that students' speech does not infringe on the rights of other students to be free 
from harassment and from verbal and psychological assault. This is particularly 
critical when the students being harassed are from disadvantaged groups, such as 
racial and religious minorities or gays and lesbians.
Universities Should Censor Anti-Semitic Speech by Susan B. Tuchman
Anti-Semitic speech is a serious problem on many American college campuses. 
This speech is often experienced as harassment and intimidation by Jewish 
students, and as such it should not be tolerated by college and university 
Schools Should Ban Sexually Harassing Speech by Bernice Resnick Sandler and Harriett 
M. Stonehill
Sexually harassing speech is unacceptably common in schools. Such speech 
harms students, violates the law, and should not be tolerated.
School Libraries Should Restrict Students' Access to Controversial Books by Mike 
Sexually explicit books should not be made available to schoolchildren without 
their parents' consent. Requiring a student to get parental permission before 
reading explicit books is not censorship; it is upholding parents' rights to raise 
their children as they see fit.
No: Educational Institutions Should Not Censor
High Schools May Not Ban Speech That Offends Other Students by Eugene Volokh
The recent court decision in Harper v. Poway Unified School District, which said 
that schools can legally ban students' speech if that speech is harmful to minority 
students, was profoundly misguided. Schools may need to restrict disruptive 
speech on some occasions, but they should restrict all disruptive speech equally 
instead of banning students from expressing only certain views.
Universities Should Not Institute Speech Codes by Greg Lukianoff
Free speech is sharply limited on many American college campuses. Speech 
codes, overly broad anti-harassment policies, censorship of student newspapers, 
and related policies threaten the ability of students and faculty to have open, 
honest debates about political and social issues.
Universities Should Encourage Open Debate by Judith Rodin
Free speech is a valuable part of campus life that should not be banned just because it 
makes some students uncomfortable. Instead of banning hateful speech, universities 
should teach students how to counter that speech with their own arguments.
School Libraries Should Not Restrict Access to Any Books by Chris Crutcher
Many young adult novels contain harsh language and painful scenes, but this is 
not a valid reason to ban those books. Real life is harsh and painful for many 
adolescents, and teenagers have the right to read novels that examine the issues 
that they face.
High Schools and Universities Should Not Censor Student Newspapers by Mike Hiestand
Recent court decisions have given high school and university administrators 
extremely broad powers to censor student newspapers. Such censorship has 
dangerously eroded students' understanding of the importance of the First 
Amendment and of freedom of the press.
Chapter 3: Should Pornographic and Violent Material Be Censored?
Censoring Pornographic and Violent Material: An Overview by Henry Cohen
The Supreme Court has declared that some kinds of speech are not guaranteed 
complete protection under the First Amendment. Obscenity, speech that may 
harm children, child pornography, and television and radio broadcasts are among 
the types of speech that may legally be restricted or banned.
Yes: Pornographic and Violent Material Should Be Censored
Indecent Broadcasts Should Be Censored by Brent Bozell
The public owns the broadcast airwaves, and the public is overwhelmingly in 
favor of preventing indecent material from being broadcast over those airwaves. 
Therefore, in a democratic country such as the United States the government 
should listen to the voters and restrict broadcasts of indecent material.
Internet Pornography Should Be Restricted by Phyllis Schafly
The Supreme Court has consistently overturned laws that were intended to protect 
minors from Internet pornography. These overturned laws were passed by the 
democratically elected Congress and addressed the clear dangers that Internet 
pornography poses to children. Because such anti-pornography laws are so 
desperately needed, Congress should act to prevent the Supreme Court from 
overturning any more pornography-related laws.
Virtual Child Pornography Should Be Banned by Ernest E. Allen
The Supreme Court's decision to overturn a law banning virtual child 
pornography puts children at risk for sexual abuse. The decision will make it 
much harder to prosecute cases where real children were abused in making child 
pornography, because advances in image manipulation technology make it almost 
impossible to tell real images from computer-generated ones. In addition, even 
completely virtual child pornography places children at risk by fueling 
The Government Should Help Parents Shield Children from Obscene and Violent 
Material by Kevin W. Saunders
The First Amendment should apply differently to children than it does to adults. 
Children are more likely to be permanently harmed by exposure to pornography, 
violence and hate speech than are adults, since children are still developing 
No: Pornographic and Violent Material Should Not Be Censored
Indecent Broadcasts Should Not Be Censored by Marjorie Heins
The Federal Communications Commission's rules on broadcast indecency are 
censorship and ought to be declared unconstitutional. Writers and directors should 
have complete artistic control over their creations, without being second-guessed 
by a panel of politically appointed commissioners.
Libraries Should Not Use Internet Filters to Block Pornography by Daniel H. Bromberg, 
Charles R. A. Morse, and Joshua A. T. Fairfield
The Children's Internet Protection Act, which requires most libraries to use 
Internet filters on their public computers, is a violation of the First Amendment. 
Internet filters block large amounts of material that is not obscene or harmful to 
minors and that library patrons have a Constitutional right to access. 
Virtual Child Pornography Should Not Be Banned by Ambika J. Biggs
 The PROTECT (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation 
of Children Today) Act, which bans virtual child pornography, is 
unconstitutionally broad. Supporters of the act say that virtual child pornography 
can lead to the sexual abuse of actual children, but the evidence for this is unclear. 
Congress cannot ban virtual child pornography-which is protected speech under 
the First Amendment-just because that pornography might in the future help a 
pedophile to abuse a child.
Parents Should Be Responsible for Monitoring Their Children's Television Viewing by 
Adam Thierer
Government censorship is the wrong way to shield children from violence in the 
media, because that censorship would prevent all Americans, including adults, 
from viewing the material that the government declares inappropriate for children. 
Instead, individual parents should decide for themselves what is too violent from 
their children and should be responsible for preventing their children from 
viewing that media.
Chapter 4: Should Speech about National Security Be Censored?
Yes: Speech That Could Endanger National Security Should Be Censored
The Press Should Not Publish Leaked Classified Material by Pat Buchanan
It is illogical that government officials who leak classified information are 
punished, but that the reporters who publish this leaked information are awarded 
with prizes for distinguished journalism. Reporters who endanger national 
security by publishing leaked classified information should be censured, not 
People Should Be Barred from Entering the United States If They Have Spoken in 
Support of Anti-American Terrorism by Steve Emerson
The United States should not give visas to foreigners who advocate for or 
condone attacks against the United States or its military. Denying visas to such 
people is not censorship; it is a prudent move to help prevent terrorist groups from 
operating within the United States.
Scientific Information That Could Help Terrorists Should Be Restricted by Mitchel B. 
The needs of scientific openness and national security must be carefully balanced 
in relation to the current threats facing the United States. At this time the largest 
threat comes from terrorist groups with limited resources. Those groups are likely 
to be drawn biological weapons, which are relatively easy to create. Given this 
threat, scientists should refrain from making certain types of biological 
information widely available.
No: Censorship Is the Wrong Response to National Security Issues
Punishing Reporters for Receiving Classified Information Threatens the Practice of 
Journalism by Paul K. McMasters
Recent court cases that have questioned journalists' rights to protect the 
confidentiality of their sources and to report on classified information that is 
leaked to them are a serious danger to American journalism. Americans have a 
right to be informed about programs that present a threat to their freedoms, even if 
the government wants those programs to be kept secret.
Journalists Have a Duty to Fight Government Secrecy by Pete Weitzel
Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has declared that vast amounts of 
governmental information are to be kept secret from the public. Such governmental 
secrecy threatens America's democratic tradition and the freedoms of individual 
Americans, yet, shamefully, most journalists have not fought for the right of access to 
this information.
People Should Not Be Barred from Entering the United States Because of Their Anti-
American Speech by Caroline Frederickson
Since the September 11 terrorist attacks the U.S. government has used 
immigration laws to deny entry to the United States to foreigners who have 
criticized America's foreign policy. This "ideological exclusion" is an 
unconstitutional breach of the American people's right to exchange ideas with 
non-citizens who hold differing viewpoints.
Not All Scientific Information That Could Help Terrorists Should Be Restricted by Gary 
S. Guzy
The United States government collects and makes available to the public large 
amounts of information about potential threats to public health from industrial 
accidents and other man-made catastrophes. Although this information could help 
terrorists to plan attacks against industrial targets, many Americans-including 
environmental and community activists-have legitimate needs to access that 
information as well. Therefore, access to that information should not be 
completely restricted.

Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication:

Censorship -- United States.
Freedom of expression -- United States.