Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime from The Sedition Act of 1798 to The War on Terrorism

Rating:
Summary: Great Tome On Intrinsic Tensions of 1st Amendment Rights!
Review: In this marvelously readable new work by celebrated academic Geoffrey R. Stone, the author offers up for our reading pleasure a wonderfully pensive, comprehensive and timely contextual look at one of the key elements in the ongoing calculus of a free society; the right to free speech as embodied in the First Amendment. Opening by collaring Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous dictum regarding the social, economic and political wisdom in allowing all sorts and manners of thoughts and premises to freely compete in the marketplace of ideas, Professor Stone delivers a wonderful and sometimes whimsical history of just how critical such allowances of civil liberties are in guaranteeing the continuance of the republic. In so doing, he allows us a more meaningful window through which we can view the current battle-lines organized around civil rights issues emanating from concern over the Patriot Act and other infringements on personal liberties.

His anecdotes are telling, and often surprising, as when one learns that Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of the writ of habeas corpus several times during his embattled administration, or how the government tried groups of dissidents in the aftermath of World War One (including famous intellectuals such as Eugene Debs and the later sixties countercultural "back-to-the land" icon Scott Nearing) for treason for their free speech critical of the war effort. In sum, this book provides the reader with a marvelous compendium tracing the history of the continuing struggle and tension between the need for public order, on the one hand, and the right of individuals and groups to speak their minds without fear of official or unofficial consequences from the government at large. Surely, events such as the involuntary segregation and detainment of Japanese Americans during the course of WWII is among the most grievous of the episodes related herein, yet other, later efforts such as the actions of the Congressional House Un-American Activities Committee (or HUAC) originally established by Harry Truman to invoke official investigation of the civil activities of ordinary Americans as a kind of litmus loyalty test are even more egregious transgressions of the ways in which government can trample over the rights and prerogatives of its citizenry.

He takes great pains to help the reader to understand that most usually such blatant transgressions on individual rights to free speech and public assembly take place during times of great national danger, such as a state of warfare. In this sense, the invocation of such a state of war itself may signal the likelihood of such efforts by the state to limit or muzzle efforts by people to speak their mind and criticize the actions of the government. Thus, we are reminded that one most often describes the period of the late 1940s until the late 1980s as the time of the so-called `Cold War". Then too, in more contemporary terms, the presumptuous attachment and use of the term "War On Terror" and President Bush's strident use of that term to justify a whole range of governmental restrictions and proscriptions ranging from no-notice `sneak & peek' searches of individual homes or arrest and detainment without preference of charges (as was done for more than two years to at least two Americans) may not be entirely coincidental.

Yet it would both a misrepresentation of the book and its arguments as well as a disservice to readers to not mention that Professor Stone believes that many of the historical cases of abuse of the First Amendment that he cites are much less likely today, for a variety of reasons. First, as he takes pain to point out, the kinds of "major restrictions of civil liberties of the past would be less thinkable today", and he adds that both in terms of the evolution of the way the Constitution itself has been interpreted, especially by the U. S Supreme Court, and in the way our very culture views such basic civil liberties, we have indeed made remarkable progress. Professor Stones cites the ways in which the decisions regarding the disposition of infamous Pentagon Papers that disallowed the government's argument for restraint on the `Fourth Estate" (the press) since the Solicitor General had not proven such denial of access was warranted. Indeed, during the sixties era a number of such decisions clarifying the enormous latitudes and allowances that must be made by the government to avoid such transgressions on the civil liberties of its citizens.

If I were to offer any complaint or constructive criticism of the book, it is that it does not offer as much satisfaction regarding the author focusing his considerable intellectual prowess in considering more contemporary issues relating to the efforts by the current administration to stifle dissent and to drop a veil of secrecy over the machinations of the Federal Government in postures such as that taken by Vice-President Cheney in blocking public access to the list of attendees or the minutes of his meeting to determine national energy policy in early 2001. Yet one cannot not deny that despite its avoidance of such critically important contemporaneous events as are occurring even as we write, that this new book by Professor Stone is a truly valuable, worthwhile, and extremely readable book that will both entertain and edify anyone fortunate enough to open its pages. It is sure to be a great gift for Christmas, and one I can highly recommend. Enjoy!


Rating:
Summary: A Great Contribution
Review: Professor Stone has provided the most complete review of America's struggle with Free Speech and security. It quickly becomes obvious that, more often than not, America's past uses of "national security" to muzzle Free Speech is more about political opportunism than any real concern over the Nation's welfare.

From the Alien & Sedition Acts to the Nixon White House, Professor Stone shows why all Americans should don a skeptical attitude whenever our leaders proffer "security" as the rationale for clamping down on dissent: it is all too often a calculated "baiting" of a political majority with a group out-of-step with conventional wisdom. Moreover, for those unfamiliar with First Amendment jurisprudence, the book brings the stories behind the litigation to life in a way that never bores the reader--it is always blended into the narrative in a fluid and enjoyable fashion.

Rating:
Summary: A great assesment
Review: This book tells the first amendment in times of crises. And what one learns is that the first amendment has often been violated beginning with the Sedition acts and then up through the `loyalty oaths' and the imprisonment of Debs and even into today. But what this book also does is give us hope, showing that actually everytime rights were taken away they were given back when the situation ended. The end of World War one brought Debs from prison. The end of Mcarthyism brought down the obsession with `red baiting'. America has been resilient to tyranny longer then any democracy in history. Even with the Civil war and the suspension of Habeas Corpus, rights returned, eventually to the South in 1877. This is America and this book is a great testament to our moderation.

Seth J. Frantzman


Rating:
Summary: One Person's Villain is Another's Hero
Review: 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 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.