Political Censorship of the Arts and the Press in Nineteenth-Century Europe presents a comprehensive account of the attempts by authorities throughout Europe to stifle the growth of political opposition during the nineteenth-century by censoring newspapers, books, caricatures, plays, operas and film. Appeals for democracy and social reform were especially suspect to the authorities, so in Russia cookbooks which refered to 'free air' in ovens were censored as subversive, while in England in 1829 the censor struck from a play the remark that 'honest men at court don't take up much room'. While nineteenth-century European political censorship blocked the open circulation of much opposition writing and art, it never succeeded entirely in its aim since writers, artists and 'consumers' often evaded the censors by clandestine circulation of forbidden material and by the widely practised skill of 'reading between the lines'.

Originally published in 1983. The nineteenth century was a time of great economic, social and political change. As Europe modernized, previously ignorant and apathetic elements in the population began to demand political freedoms. There was pressure also for a freer press, for the rights of assembly and association. The apprehension of the existing elites manifested itself in an intensification of often brutal form of political repression. The first part of this book summarizes on a pan-European basis, the major techniques of repression such as the denial of popular franchise and press censorship. This is followed by a chronological survey of these techniques from 1815 – 1914 in each European country. The book analyzes the long and short-term importance of these events for European historical development in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Enhanced with a new introduction and an updated bibliography, Political Repression in Modern America remains an essential record of the relentless intolerance that suppresses radical dissent in the United States.

During the Allies' invasion of Italy in the thick of World War II, American soldier James Kutcher was hit by a German mortar shell and lost both of his legs. Back home, rehabilitated and given a job at the Veterans' Administration, he was soon to learn that his battles were far from over. In 1948, in the throes of the post-war Red Scare, the hysteria over perceived Communist threats that marked the Cold War, the government moved to fire Kutcher because of his membership in a small, left-wing group that had once espoused revolutionary sentiments. Kutcher's eight-year legal odyssey to clear his name and assert his First Amendment rights, described in full for the first time in this book, is at once a cautionary tale in a new period of patriotic one-upmanship, and a story of tenacious patriotism in its own right. The son of Russian immigrants, James Kutcher came of age during the Great Depression. Robbed of his hope of attending college or finding work of any kind, he joined the Socialist Workers Party, left-wing and strongly anti-Soviet, in his hometown of Newark. When his membership in the SWP came back to haunt him at the height of the Red Scare, Kutcher took up the fight against efforts to punish people for their thoughts, ideas, speech, and associations. As a man who had fought for his country and paid a great price, had never done anything that could be construed as treasonous, held a low level clerical position utterly unconnected with national security, and was the sole support of his elderly parents, Kutcher cut an especially sympathetic figure in the drama of Cold War witch-hunts. In a series of confrontations, in what were highly publicized as the "case of the legless veteran," the federal government tried to oust Kutcher from his menial Veterans’ Administration job, take away his World War II disability benefits, and to oust him and his family from their federally subsidized housing. Discrediting the Red Scare tells the story of his long legal struggle in the face of government persecution—that redoubled after every setback until the bitter end.

The first book to fully chronicle the origins, evolution, and demise of the McCarthy-era program known as the Attorney General's List of Subversive Organizations--originally conceived to ferret out "disloyal" federal employees but wielded as a controversial weapon that threatened the constitutional rights of ordinary citizens.

In nineteenth-century Europe the ruling elites viewed the theater as a form of communication which had enormous importance. The theater provided the most significant form of mass entertainment and was the only arena aside from the church in which regular mass gatherings were possible. Therefore, drama censorship occupied a great deal of the ruling class’s time and energy, with a particularly focus on proposed scripts that potentially threatened the existing political, legal, and social order. This volume provides the first comprehensive examination of nineteenth-century political theater censorship at a time, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, when the European population was becoming increasingly politically active.

First published in 1995, Saving Old Glory provides a detailed account of the origins and development of the American flag desecration controversy.

When Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as part of a political protest, he was convicted for flag desecration under Texas law. But the Supreme Court, by a contentious 5 to margin, overturned that conviction, claiming that Johnson's action constituted symbolic -- and thus protected -- speech. Heated debate continues to swirl around that controversial decision, both hailed as a victory for free speech advocates and reviled as an abomination that erodes the patriotic foundations of American democracy. Such passionate yet contradictory views are at the heart of this landmark case. Book jacket.

In 1989 a political fire storm erupted after the United States Supreme Court declared that dissidents had the constitutional right under the First Amendment to burn the flag. To some, including President George Bush and many members of Congress, the flag was a sacred symbol of American freedoms. They believed its physical destruction posed a serious threat to the country and demanded a constitutional amendment to reverse the Court's decision. For those who defended the Court's ruling, flag desecration was a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and any attempt to forbid such conduct was seen as creating a dangerous precedent. Burning the Flag brings together the disciplines of law, journalism, political science, and history to explain and place the development of the controversy in its full context. It is based on extensive research in legal, congressional, and journalistic sources and on exclusive interviews with nearly 100 of the key players in the dispute, among them flag burners, judges, lawyers and lobbyists on both sides, members of Congress, congressional aides, and journalists. A timely addendum chronicles the late 1995 attempts once again to pass a constitutional amendment on flag desecration, adding to the significance of this readable account. Burning the Flag will be of value to both an academic and a general audience, particularly to civil libertarians, flag buffs, and those interested in popular media, American politics, modern American history, and constitutional law.