From Library Journal
Is enduring "hate speech" and "pornography" worth "the price we pay" for free speech? No, say the authors of these essays, many of which were presented at a 1993 conference at the University of Chicago Law School. The essayists include such familiar names as Andrea Dworkin, Catharine MacKinnon, and Eleanor Smeal. Most allege that "hate speech" and "pornography" (neither term is defined by the authors or editors) lead to hate crimes and violence against women. Many chastise the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, which struck down that city's antipornography ordinance because, they believe, it may legitimize offensive speech. In the epilog, editors Lederer, a feminist theorist and editor of the anthology Take Back the Night (1980), and Delgado, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, suggest that the Court, with its decisions on hate speech and pornography, "risks becoming an impediment to serious social dialogue." The implication in this volume is that the First Amendment must be emasculated in the cause of eliminating hate crimes and crimes against women. For another view, see Nat Hentoff's Free Speech for Me-But Not for Thee (LJ 9/15/92) and Aryeh Neier's Defending My Enemy (LJ 2/1/79). Recommended for academic and large public library collections, particularly where what constitutes free speech is an issue.Sue Kamm, Inglewood P.L., Cal.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc.