Geoffrey R. Stone

One Person’s Villain is Another’s Hero
War excites passions.

The nation itself may find itself in peril; thousands, perhaps millions of lives are at risk. It is often thought that dissent during wartime is tantamount to being disloyal. This view puzzles libertarians. They view it as patriotism's highest manifestation.

During wartime, the line between dissent and disloyalty is cloudy. The First Amendment, prohibiting Congress from enacting any law abridging freedom of speech, is put to the show more test.

Some judges and legal scholars reason the First Amendment is essential to self-government. They argue the First Amendment promotes character traits that are essential to a robust democracy: skepticism, personal responsibility, curiosity, distrust of authority and independent thinking.

“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,” wrote one of my favorite Supreme Court justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Geoffrey Stone, the former dean of law provost at the University of Chicago, identifies six periods of widespread free-speech repression, dating back to the administration of the nation's second president, John Adams, and continuing through the Vietnam era. He identifies three principals that shape the Supreme Court’s understanding of the First Amendment.

1. No government paternalism in the realm of political discourse.
2. Punish the actor, not the speaker.
3. Differentiate between low- and high-value speech.

This is a book about Americans struggling with the responsibilities of self-government during times of war. It is about the presidents who struggled balancing liberty and security. It is about the justices of the Supreme Court who attempted to define the difference. More importantly, it is about those individuals who had the courage to dissent during perilous times. Some were fools; others were villains; some were individuals of great moral courage.

Geoffrey Stone has written a timely masterpiece about individual Americans who struggled to preserve our liberties. show less

I have only one criticism of this book, which was extremely informative and thought-provoking in it’s entirety. And by thought provoking, I do not mean Stone confirms my civil libertarian tendencies. Quite the opposite in fact. After reading the book, I can understand the legal logic that justifies these restrictions, even if I completely disagree with the need to subdue dissent during wartime except in extremely narrow circumstances (e.g., revealing troop movements). My one criticism has show more to do with the formatting. Stone uses extensive footnotes and endnotes. I’m a habitual footnote reader, particularly when both endnotes and footnotes are used in the same work. If it appears in a footnote, it’s probably interesting to read. Most of the footnotes here were. But the asterisk marking most of them never stood out well enough for me to notice it. So I’d get to the bottom of the page with the footnote, and then need to rescan the page looking for the text to which the footnote related. Really really annoying.

(Full review at my blog) show less

The very best book about the First Amendment and free speech in America since the Constitution I've ever read. I recommend it often, and tell my students about it every semester since it came out.

This is a well written and thorough examination of the evolution of laws in the United States regarding obscenity, abortion, and same sex. The author is knowledgeable and provides understandable explanations for judicial decisions. The historical perspective is provided and the key personnel involved are described in appropriate detail. I found this book interesting and educational. I strongly recommend this book.