検索キーワード： 検閲

There is no such thing as free, unconstrained speech. Laws and constitutions may protect us from the state when we speak our minds. But the state is just one possible constraint. Glenn Loury, one of America's most outspoken and important intellectuals, provides a provocative and dazzling analysis of the powerful social forces that can prevent speakers from voicing unpopular views in public forums.

From assaults on merit-based hiring to the policing of language and replacing well-established, disciplinary scholarship by ideological mantras, current science and scholarship is under threat throughout western institutions. Many who have spoken up against this threat have lost their positions, and a climate of fear has arisen that strikes at the heart of modern education and research.

لا شك أن الكتابة في هذا الموضوع أمر شائك معقَّد؛ فثمَّة أشياء عديدة تطل برأسها في طريق الادعاءات والاحتجاجات وشواهد الحكايات والفرضيات والمؤامرات والنظريات،...

Owned is the story of the underreported and growing collusion between new wealth and new journalism. In recent years, right-wing billionaires like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Marc Andreessen, and David Sacks have turned to media as their next investment and source of influence. Their cronies are Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi—once known as idealistic and left-leaning voices, now beneficiaries of Silicon Valley largesse. Together, this new alliance aims to exploit the failings of traditional journalism and undermine the very idea of an independent and fact-based fourth estate.

A timely guide to help you re-examine your ideas, encounter debate, and navigate a polarized world with calm rationality. "Nerenberg offers ways to speak up, stand alone, and be true to ourselves. . . . Nerenberg’s timely and thought-provoking analysis is sure to spark discussion." –...

Exposes how companies like Visa, Chase, PayPal, Bank of America, and Mastercard use their power to silence dissenting voices and hurt democracy through the practice of financial censorship Civil liberties activist Rainey Reitman introduces readers to the concept of “financial censorship”—a...

Von der Gelbhaar-Affäre in der ARD über den Umgang mit der AfD, bis hin zur Frage, wer heute über Pressefreiheit und Zensur im Netz entscheidet – das Trio liefert tiefe Einblicke, kluge Perspektiven und spannende Interviews. Mit Gästen wie Alexander King (BSW), Carsten Brennecke oder Florian Christoph Boitin werden journalistische Fragen aus verschiedenen Blickwinkeln beleuchtet.

'Essential' - Alan Rusbridger 'Riveting' - Arash Azizi, The Atlantic 'Exceptional' - Michael Hauser-Tov, Haaretz 'Profound, compelling, and fascinating' - Emily Maitlis, The News Agents 'A must-read' - Jane Martinson, The Guardian As we find ourselves in a time of democratic decay all over the...

We’re often told that disinformation is everywhere and that it’s endangering our democracy. But what if the war on disinformation itself is really just a weapon to squash any and all legitimate dissent? This program is read by the author. The Information State is an incisive examination of...

In 1947, the Cold War came to Hollywood. Over nine tumultuous days in October, the House Un-American Activities Committee held a notorious round of hearings into alleged Communist subversion in the movie industry. The blowback was profound: the major studios pledged to never again employ a known Communist or unrepentant fellow traveler. The declaration marked the onset of the blacklist era, a time when political allegiances, real or suspected, determined employment opportunities in the entertainment industry. Hundreds of artists were shown the dooror had it shut in their faces.

Free speech is indispensable on college campuses: allowing varied views and frank exchanges of opinion is a core component of the educational enterprise. But free speech does not mean a free-for-all. The First Amendment prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech," yet laws against perjury or bribery, for example, are still constitutional. In the same way, valuing freedom of speech does not stop a university from regulating speech when doing so is necessary for its educational mission. So where is the dividing line? How can we distinguish reasonable restrictions from impermissible infringement?