There's No Such Thing As Free Speech and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Qty:1
  • List Price: $34.99
  • Save: $5.12 (15%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
There's No Such Thing As ... has been added to your Cart
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: Eligible for Amazon's FREE Super Saver/Prime Shipping, 24/7 Customer Service, and package tracking. 100% Satisfaction Guarantee.
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too Paperback – December 15, 1994

ISBN-13: 978-0195093834 ISBN-10: 0195093836

Buy New
Price: $29.87
30 New from $12.00 67 Used from $0.01 1 Collectible from $9.98
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Paperback
"Please retry"
$29.87
$12.00 $0.01
Free%20Two-Day%20Shipping%20for%20College%20Students%20with%20Amazon%20Student


Frequently Bought Together

There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too + Doing What Comes Naturally:  Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies
Price for both: $55.21

Buy the selected items together

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Best Books of the Month
Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 352 pages
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press (December 15, 1994)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0195093836
  • ISBN-13: 978-0195093834
  • Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.6 x 0.9 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (13 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,023,503 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Head of Duke University's English Department and putative flag-bearer for political correctness, Fish here collects a lively and vigorous sampling of his cultural criticism. Notable are his textured essays written for a series of campus debates with conservative Dinesh D'Souza. Fish places such current education controversies as those over multiculturist requirements in historical perspective; scores simplistic critics of affirmative action; suggests self-segregation can be justified as an exercise of autonomy; and observes that political power and " real political correctness" is determined by the "triple threat of money, media domination and governmental regulation." His provocative title essay argues cogently that the neat legal definition between speech and conduct breaks down in concrete examples. In more abstruse essays, Fish turns his analytic skills, honed in literarycriticism, to dissect some of the presumptions of legal thought. If the essays do range a bit, they are linked by a skeptical and probing voice.
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal

Fish, the author of numerous books on Milton, literary theory, and the politics of teaching, has become in recent years famous for defending the contemporary academy in a series of debates held at various colleges and universities with the neo-conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza. In anticipation of these debates, he prepared five remarkable essays, which constitute the core of this learned and wide-ranging collection. Other essays concern the political and historical context of controversies over the notion of "free speech," as well as the enduring legacy of Milton and the masochism of Volvo-driving academics. Despite his public reputation, Fish's views cannot be easily subsumed under such labels as "deconstructionist," "post-structuralist," or even "leftist." The provocative title simply refers to the fact that, as Fish avers, "the act of speaking would make no sense... absent some already-in-place and (for the time being) unquestioned ideological vision." Many readers will find pleasure in Fish's simultaneously literate but blunt prose style. Recommended for informed readers.
- Kent Worcester, Social Science Research Council, New York
Copyright 1993 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

More About the Author

Stanley Fish is the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University. He has previously taught at the University of California at Berkeley, Johns Hopkins University, Duke University, and the University of Illinois at Chicago, where he was dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. He has received many honors and awards, including being named the Chicagoan of the Year for Culture. He is the author of twelve books and is now a weekly columnist for the New York Times. He resides in Andes, New York; New York City; and Delray Beach, Florida; with his wife, Jane Tompkins.

Customer Reviews

3.6 out of 5 stars
5 star
5
4 star
1
3 star
4
2 star
3
1 star
0
See all 13 customer reviews
The logic of his assertions, however, is remarkably strained, when it appears at all.
Daniel Brady
Despite the logical fallacy of this belief, Fish's "consequentialist" view of speech cannot recognize this distinction.
Walter Hearne
One possesses power not because of the ability to persuade others---but you can kick the crap out of them!
David Thomson

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

75 of 92 people found the following review helpful By Walter Hearne on November 22, 1999
Format: Paperback
Stanley Fish is a provocative, clever, engaging.....charlatan. His main idea: censorship isn't bad, it just depends on what we're trying to do with it. Fish's most ludicrous claim is that the free speech paradigm is not "tolerant" of those who, like himself, argue for a "more restrictive" approach to expression. Yet here he is, writing, publishing, a profiting from a book with such a view. Did I miss something here? Apparently he feels that because many people vehemently disagree with him, he is not being tolerated. Poor Stanley.
Fish attempts to compare the prohibition of "hate speech" to other limits on expression, such as those on obscenity, fighting words, or matters of national security, without recognizing the miserable failures and excesses that have resulted from all three. His one promising analogy, libel/slander law, is left unexplored.
Fish also claims that the "slippery slope" argument is mere exaggeration. He argues that the PC culture on college campuses cannot be compared to McCarthyism because nobody has really been seriously victimized by it. His one piece of evidence is a quote from a Time magazine article. The Shadow University by Kors and Silvergate gives the lie to Fish's rosy scenario. Fish also fails to account for a mechanism by which we might recover from an unduly expansive or repressive application of his progressive censorship (an ideal borrowed from Marxist scholar Herbert Marcuse, an intellectual forebear whom he never acknowledges). Once Fish's program has been fully implemented, it is only a matter of time before such censorship precludes not only "hate" speech but arguments in favor of greater liberty of expression.
Read more ›
2 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
25 of 33 people found the following review helpful By A Customer on June 29, 2001
Format: Paperback
Free speech does not exist. American democracy is a sham. Our feeling that the holocaust was wrong is merely an irrational emotional reaction. The U.S. constitution allows churches to persecute nonbelievers - and that would be just fine. These - and many other controvertial opinions - are expressed by Stanley Fish, one of the leading postmodernists of today, in this book.
The core of Fish's argument is that *any* discussion, by the mere fact of *being* a discussion that uses words in a certain languages, involves "censorship", because the words, terms, and expressions used in the language have hidden biases in them. Therefore, we are better of without preserving the "illusion" that there is an objective right or wrong, or that democracy is objectively better than fascism, or that the first amendment means anything.
Fish, I think, is pulling an "Andy Kaufman" on us. It is highly unlikely that he actually believes any of this nonsense, despite his articulate defense of it. (Fish is, one must admit, a compelling writer, who can get you convinced - momentarily - of the most absurd nonsense. You only notice the logical lapses, non-sequitors, and stretching of anaolgies *way* past their breaking point - if at all - when you finish the reading.) I think it is much more probably that he just wants to get people angry by taking up a "provocative" position with a seemingly straight face - hence the book's title.
The question is what is Fish's purpose in all this. If his purpose is to get an apathetic public to question and defend their beliefs in freedom of speech and democracy, that is good. But it seems to me more likely that Fish is simply being meritricious for personal gain: he is using his considerable rhetorical and pedagogical talents to defend nonsense, not because he believes it or wants others to object to him, but in order to make a name for himself as academia's "bad boy".
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful By Vicki B. on May 18, 2013
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
This is Stanley Fish at his contrary and quibbling finest. His argumentative points are honed to fine poniards with which to skewer opponents, and it really is one of my favorite books. It's one of those books wherein some of the points are a little hard to master, but when you once see what the author means, you're amazed that you never saw them for yourself before. This is a fine companion to any pursuit of literary studies, cultural studies, rhetoric, in fact it's just a plain fine book to read to restore one's common sense level about the way the modern world operates.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
By Robert J. O'Brien on May 29, 2014
Format: Hardcover Verified Purchase
I hope I can get time to read this. I have been to two conferences in the last month, and I am nagged to evaluate this.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
6 of 10 people found the following review helpful By Kevin Currie-Knight TOP 1000 REVIEWERVINE VOICE on May 21, 2004
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Stanley Fish writes with an overarching theme: general principles and theories might be pragmatically necessary (as communicative rhetoric) but beyond that are just not real or feasible. It is the ultimate irony, then, that while reading this book I found myself asking why Fish didn't apply this 'princple' (and principle it is) to himself.
The idea is that principles like 'fairness,' 'free speech,' 'justice,' and 'equality,' are, in truth, no more than rhetorical abstractions we use to justify things WE like. To be honest, Fish argues well for this and gives us many examples. But, as Fish himself writes, 'general principles' can be taken too far and outlive any semblance of usefulness. It is when he tries to apply this 'principle' to different problems that he gets a little weird and alas, the 'no general principle' thing comes to bite HIM.
The first section is a collection of essays written for campus debates with Dinesh D'Souza in relation to affirmative action and campus diversity - Fish being ademantly for each of these. Fish's argument seems to be this: "Since 'fairness' and 'equality' can mean anything to anyone and they as principles don't exist, Mr. D'souza or anyone else shouldn't appeal to them. We should only ever appeal to historical context - history is everything here." The problem is that subtley, Fish is (a) making argument against him impossible because...what do you say to someone who refuses to acknowledge any principle at all1?; and (b) subtley sneaking general principles back in by saying: "When we take history into account, affirmative action (etc.) turns out to be fair (even though fairness is not a valid principle).
The next set of essays is on freedom of speech.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Most Recent Customer Reviews


What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?