There's No Such Thing As Free Speech and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more



or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering
More Buying Choices
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Start reading There's No Such Thing As Free Speech on your Kindle in under a minute.

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Sorry, this item is not available in
Image not available for
Color:
Image not available

To view this video download Flash Player

 

There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too [Paperback]

Stanley Fish
3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)

List Price: $34.99
Price: $28.24 & FREE Shipping. Details
You Save: $6.75 (19%)
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Gift-wrap available.
Want it Wednesday, May 29? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
Free Two-Day Shipping for College Students with Amazon Student

Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition $14.84  
Hardcover --  
Paperback $28.24  
Rent Your Textbooks
Save up to 70% when you rent your textbooks on Amazon. Keep your textbook rentals for a semester and rental return shipping is free.

Book Description

December 15, 1994 0195093836 978-0195093834
In an era when much of what passes for debate is merely moral posturing--traditional family values versus the cultural elite, free speech versus censorship--or reflexive name-calling--the terms "liberal" and "politically correct," are used with as much dismissive scorn by the right as "reactionary" and "fascist" are by the left--Stanley Fish would seem an unlikely lightning rod for controversy. A renowned scholar of Milton, head of the English Department of Duke University, Fish has emerged as a brilliantly original critic of the culture at large, praised and pilloried as a vigorous debunker of the pieties of both the left and right. His mission is not to win the cultural wars that preoccupy the nation's attention, but rather to redefine the terms of battle.
In There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, Fish takes aim at the ideological gridlock paralyzing academic and political exchange in the nineties. In his witty, accessible dissections of the swirling controversies over multiculturalism, affirmative action, canon revision, hate speech, and legal reform, he neatly eviscerates both the conservatives' claim to possession of timeless, transcendent values (the timeless transcendence of which they themselves have conveniently identified), and the intellectual left's icons of equality, tolerance, and non-discrimination. He argues that while conservative ideologues and liberal stalwarts might disagree vehemently on what is essential to a culture, or to a curriculum, both mistakenly believe that what is essential can be identified apart from the accidental circumstances (of time and history) to which the essential is ritually opposed.
In the book's first section, which includes the five essays written for Fish's celebrated debates with Dinesh D'Souza (the author and former Reagan White House policy analyst), Fish turns his attention to the neoconservative backlash. In his introduction, Fish writes, "Terms that come to us wearing the label 'apolitical'--'common values', 'fairness', 'merit', 'color blind', 'free speech', 'reason'--are in fact the ideologically charged constructions of a decidedly political agenda. I make the point not in order to level an accusation, but to remove the sting of accusation from the world 'politics' and redefine it as a synonym for what everyone inevitably does." Fish maintains that the debate over political correctness is an artificial one, because it is simply not possible for any party or individual to occupy a position above or beyond politics. Regarding the controversy over the revision of the college curriculum, Fish argues that the point is not to try to insist that inclusion of ethnic and gender studies is not a political decision, but "to point out that any alternative curriculum--say a diet of exclusively Western or European texts--would be no less politically invested."
In Part Two, Fish follows the implications of his arguments to a surprising rejection of the optimistic claims of the intellectual left that awareness of the historical roots of our beliefs and biases can allow us, as individuals or as a society, to escape or transcend them. Specifically, he turns to the movement for reform of legal studies, and insists that a dream of a legal culture in which no one's values are slighted or declared peripheral can no more be realized than the dream of a concept of fairness that answers to everyone's notions of equality and jsutice, or a yardstick of merit that is true to everyone's notions of worth and substance. Similarly, he argues that attempts to politicize the study of literature are ultimately misguided, because recharacterizations of literary works have absolutely no impact on the mainstream of political life. He concludes his critique of the academy with "The Unbearable Ugliness of Volvos," an extraordinary look at some of the more puzzing, if not out-and-out masochistic, characteristics of a life in academia.
Penetrating, fearless, and brilliantly argued, There's No Such Thing as Free Speech captures the essential Fish. It is must reading for anyone who cares about the outcome of America's cultural wars.

Frequently Bought Together

There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too + The Harm in Hate Speech (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures) + Free Speech: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)
Price for all three: $56.63

Buy the selected items together


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.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 352 pages
  • Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (December 15, 1994)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0195093836
  • ISBN-13: 978-0195093834
  • Product Dimensions: 5.3 x 0.9 x 8 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #543,581 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

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

Most Helpful Customer Reviews
71 of 87 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars We repress with the best of intentions 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. For example, people often confuse the KKK's right to free speech with advocation of the KKK's views. Despite the logical fallacy of this belief, Fish's "consequentialist" view of speech cannot recognize this distinction. Civil libertarian Nat Hentoff wrote a recent op-ed describing how a woman defending the right of the KKK to rally in New York City was physically attacked by a mob of presumably "progressive" citizens who apparently held this view. THIS IS THE FACE OF "PROGRESSIVE CENSORSHIP." (Nor does Mr. Fish explain how claims of "hate speech" may be adjudicated without ultimately relying the wholly subjective assertions of the supposed victim, to the exclusion of objective fact. Case in point: the word "niggardly" as racist epithet).

Fish's views are typical of leftist scholars who promise us "true" or "real" freedom if only we implement their prescribed policies. The catch is that we may have to curtail some previously cherished freedoms, but don't worry, this is only temporary and done for the sake of the oppressed.....hmmmmm.....where have we heard this before?

What Fish and his ilk can't stand is watching a dynamic process like public discourse continue unimpeded. They feel a need to control it, or direct it, or guide it, or engineer it, however you want to describe it. Sorry Professor Fish, but I must unsheath the cliche he so dreads: the answer to bad speech is more good speech, not to ban the bad speech. When God forbade Adam & Eve from eating the apple, did it stop'em?

Was this review helpful to you?
24 of 31 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Thought-Provoking... but for what purpose? June 29, 2001
By A Customer
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?
6 of 9 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Taking Some Interesting Points Too Far! May 21, 2004
Format:Paperback|Amazon 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. Fish says that that too doesn't really exist and then proceeds to demonstrate by pointing out the obvious: no matter what 'theory' of free-speech one uses, there will always be hard cases where principle can't decide alone. He then proceeds to take principle too far and declare that because of this, the whole of free-speech law is a rhetorical put-on and therefore, things like hate-speech legislation or pornography bans are really justified. After all, if there are hard cases, then we can do whatever we'd like, right? The problem is that just because there are hard cases doesn't mean that we can't try to be as inclusive and libertarian as POSSIBLE. From Fish's recognition that free-speech always has boundaries doesn't follow that therefore we should just censor everything.

His next section is on legal theory and it is here he takes an almost opposite turn. He concludes (with Richard Posner) that general principles in law and legal theory are just as bogus as they are in any other field. BUT, he disagrees with people like the legal crit school (bet you didn't think Fish would do that!) by saying that here, general principles are at least pragmatically necessary so as to maintain the reason d'etre of law: consistency, order, and at least the appearance of trying to be impartial. Whereas in the other two sections, lack of general principles meant we should sort of do whatever is whatever, here - somehow - general principles have a vital role to play.

All of this is to say that while I enjoyed the book and it was very provocative, Fish does as most people who discover a 'general principle' do: he takes it a bit too far, applying it with a gusto to everything he can get his hands on. What he SOMETIMES pays lip-service to in these essays (and most of the time, not) is that while general principles may be hollow on examination, we can't help but use them as they are (a) valuable communicative tools; (b) unavoidable linguistically; and (c) pragmatically useful in things like law, science, philosophy, and even...literary criticism. LIke those Fish criticzes, I just think he is too drunk with his own "no principle" principle.

But get the book anyway. It is a great read and will most certainly make you think. Fish really is not that ultra-post-modern guy the conservatives like to pretend he is and some of the positions he takes in this book - against interdisciplinarianism and New Historicism - will prove it.

Comment | 
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too
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... Read more
Published 7 days ago by Vicki B.
4.0 out of 5 stars Distinctly fishy
Waspish polemic, disingenuous when not purely casuistical. Does Fish believe what he's saying? He has a natty line in titles, the title piece being the least tendentious of the... Read more
Published 12 months ago by Simon G. Barrett
2.0 out of 5 stars Erudite expression of errors.
First, readers should be warned - if you're not comfortable with the jargon of academia, this book is going to be something of a slog - the author seems to be writing for other... Read more
Published on October 26, 2009 by Daniel Brady
3.0 out of 5 stars Thought provoking and debatable
Fish presents essentially a social constructivist argument and aptly applies it to common political and social trends and concepts. Read more
Published on January 23, 2005 by Adem Kendir
5.0 out of 5 stars Stanley Fish is after you! Yes you!
Now, sitting comfortably? Are you a liberal or a conservative? Do you think your views, sane, rational, fair, unbiased or generally decent? Read more
Published on February 10, 2001 by peculiar
2.0 out of 5 stars Fish is Right: Censorship is Intrinsically Unavoidable
Stanley Fish takes advantage of the fact that many people fail to grasp an essential aspect regarding all human communities: censorship is unavoidable and intrinsic. Read more
Published on July 2, 2000 by David Thomson
5.0 out of 5 stars A layman's viewpoint of an excellent book
This series of essays is extremely thought-provoking and intellectually rigorous. I have returned to this book numerous times either for an essay or the entire collection. Read more
Published on July 3, 1999
3.0 out of 5 stars Stanley Fish: One of the nation's greatest journalists
One of the great things about Stanley Fish is that he tells us what we all already know, and gets us to pay him for it--even though we don't like what he tells us! Read more
Published on December 20, 1998
5.0 out of 5 stars Mercilessly clear and to the point. A relentless critique of immense...
Stanley Fish is not content to be one of the greatest Milton scholars of our time--he also has to write brilliantly about the state of the academy and the nation. Read more
Published on March 11, 1997
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?


Forums

There are no discussions about this product yet.
Be the first to discuss this product with the community.
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
 


Listmania!


Create a Listmania! list

So You'd Like to...



Look for Similar Items by Category