Free Speech in the Balance is the first comprehensive study of proportional analysis in free speech theory. This book challenges the US Supreme Court's categorical approach and explains the importance of understanding the breadth of concerns arising from regulations directly and indirectly impacting expression. The author provides in-depth analysis of some of the important social and political principles governing topics of vital concern, including campaign financing, university speech codes, secondary school rules, incitement, and threats. This book should be read by students and scholars of free speech theory and anyone interested in learning more about the history of existing law, the issues of current importance, and trends in expressive significance.

'Meiklejohn, Kalven, Fiss, Schauer, Post - and now Tsesis. This path-breaking study combines high theoretical inquiry with careful doctrinal problem-solving and rich comparative analysis to advance a new contextual approach for the most intricate questions of free speech confronting American judges today. The result is a 21st-century theory offering rules of reasoning fit for a contemporary representative democracy.'

Richard Albert - William Stamps Farish Professor in Law and Professor of Government, The University of Texas at Austin

'A powerful attack on American free speech absolutism in favor of European proportionality. Professor Alexander Tsesis reminds us that free speech controversies do not exist in sealed First Amendment containers, but require nuanced understandings of their broader contexts and the values that undergird the entire Constitution.'

Mark Graber - University System of Maryland Regents Professor, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law

'Tsesis has written an important book whose central thesis can be summarized by one of his own sentences: 'Context matters.' He attacks so-called 'categorical' approaches to freedom of speech, adopted by the ACLU and the current conservative majority of the Supreme Court alike, that tend to ignore the concrete realities of the cases before them. One need not agree with all of his arguments in order to recognize them as a valuable intervention in a significant public debate about when, if at all, the 'market' of speech should be subject to regulation.'

Sanford Levinson - University of Texas Law School, and co-author, with Cynthia Levinson, of Fault Lines in the Constitution