What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know®
An engaging guide to the most important free speech rules, rationales, and debates, including the strongest arguments for and against protecting the most controversial speech, such as hate speech and disinformation.
This concise but comprehensive book engagingly lays out specific answers to myriad topical questions about free speech law, and also general explanations of how and why the law distinguishes between protected and punishable speech. Free Speech provides the essential background for understanding and contributing to our burgeoning debates about whether to protect speech with various kinds of controversial content, such as hate speech and the applicable legal tenets and the strongest arguments for and against them.
The book focuses on modern First Amendment law, explaining the historic factors that propelled its evolution in a more speech-protective direction - in particular, the Civil Rights Movement. It highlights the many cases, involving multiple issues, in which robust speech-protective principles aided advocates of racial justice and other human rights causes. The book also shows how these holdings reflect universal, timeless values, which have been incorporated in many other legal systems, and have inspired countless thinkers and activists alike.
Without oversimplifying the complexities of free speech law, the book's lively question-and-answer format summarizes this law in an understandable, interesting, and memorable fashion. It addresses the issues in a logical sequence, presenting colorful facts and eloquent language from landmark Supreme Court opinions. It will be illuminating to a wide range of readers, from those who know nothing about free speech law, to those who have studied it but seek a well-organized summary of major doctrinal rules, as well as insights into their background, rationales, and interconnections.
This concise but comprehensive book engagingly lays out specific answers to myriad topical questions about free speech law, and also general explanations of how and why the law distinguishes between protected and punishable speech. Free Speech provides the essential background for understanding and contributing to our burgeoning debates about whether to protect speech with various kinds of controversial content, such as hate speech and the applicable legal tenets and the strongest arguments for and against them.
The book focuses on modern First Amendment law, explaining the historic factors that propelled its evolution in a more speech-protective direction - in particular, the Civil Rights Movement. It highlights the many cases, involving multiple issues, in which robust speech-protective principles aided advocates of racial justice and other human rights causes. The book also shows how these holdings reflect universal, timeless values, which have been incorporated in many other legal systems, and have inspired countless thinkers and activists alike.
Without oversimplifying the complexities of free speech law, the book's lively question-and-answer format summarizes this law in an understandable, interesting, and memorable fashion. It addresses the issues in a logical sequence, presenting colorful facts and eloquent language from landmark Supreme Court opinions. It will be illuminating to a wide range of readers, from those who know nothing about free speech law, to those who have studied it but seek a well-organized summary of major doctrinal rules, as well as insights into their background, rationales, and interconnections.
- GenresPoliticsLawNonfiction
278 pages, Hardcover
Published October 31, 2023
7 people are currently reading
1522 people want to read
About the author
Nadine Strossen
18 books29 followersNadine Strossen was president of the American Civil Liberties Union from February 1991 to October 2008. She was the first woman and the youngest person to ever lead the ACLU. A professor at New York Law School, Professor Strossen sits on the Council on Foreign Relations. She has been hailed as one of the most influential business leaders, women, or lawyers in such publications as the National Law Journal, Working Woman Magazine, Vanity Fair, and many others.
Strossen was born in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1950. She has stated that the experiences of her family were her inspiration to pursue a career in civil liberties. "My father was a holocaust survivor and my mother’s father was a protester during World War I when he came to this country as an immigrant, and he was literally spat upon for not going to fight in the war," said Strossen in an interview. "His official sentence for being a conscientious objector was to be forced to stand against the courthouse in Hudson County, New Jersey so that passers-by could spit on him." Strossen graduated from Harvard College in 1972, Phi Beta Kappa, and then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975, magna cum laude. In law school, she served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Strossen practiced law in Minneapolis and New York City for nine years before becoming a Professor of Law at New York Law School in 1989.
In February, 1991, Strossen became the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, filling the vacancy left by the resignation of Norman Dorsen. As president, Strossen made over 200 public presentations each year and gave frequent public commentary on civil liberties issues in the national media. She appeared on nearly every major U.S. news program and has received numerous awards and honors. In May 2008, she announced her resignation. On October 18, 2008, the ACLU selected Susan Herman, a constitutional law professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York, to replace her.
Strossen is an active member of NORML, an organization promoting the decriminalization of marijuana. She is also a member of the National Youth Rights Association Advisory Board and a founding member of Feminists for Free Expression.
In October 2001, Strossen made her theater debut as the guest star in Eve Ensler's award-winning play, The Vagina Monologues.
Strossen is married to Eli Noam, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business.
from Wikipedia.
Strossen was born in Jersey City, New Jersey in 1950. She has stated that the experiences of her family were her inspiration to pursue a career in civil liberties. "My father was a holocaust survivor and my mother’s father was a protester during World War I when he came to this country as an immigrant, and he was literally spat upon for not going to fight in the war," said Strossen in an interview. "His official sentence for being a conscientious objector was to be forced to stand against the courthouse in Hudson County, New Jersey so that passers-by could spit on him." Strossen graduated from Harvard College in 1972, Phi Beta Kappa, and then graduated from Harvard Law School in 1975, magna cum laude. In law school, she served as an editor of the Harvard Law Review.
Strossen practiced law in Minneapolis and New York City for nine years before becoming a Professor of Law at New York Law School in 1989.
In February, 1991, Strossen became the president of the American Civil Liberties Union, filling the vacancy left by the resignation of Norman Dorsen. As president, Strossen made over 200 public presentations each year and gave frequent public commentary on civil liberties issues in the national media. She appeared on nearly every major U.S. news program and has received numerous awards and honors. In May 2008, she announced her resignation. On October 18, 2008, the ACLU selected Susan Herman, a constitutional law professor at Brooklyn Law School in New York, to replace her.
Strossen is an active member of NORML, an organization promoting the decriminalization of marijuana. She is also a member of the National Youth Rights Association Advisory Board and a founding member of Feminists for Free Expression.
In October 2001, Strossen made her theater debut as the guest star in Eve Ensler's award-winning play, The Vagina Monologues.
Strossen is married to Eli Noam, a professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business.
from Wikipedia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
June 24, 2024
I’m a leftist and pretty progressive. My “side” is known for censorship and wanting to block speech. And trust me, I get this urge a ton because I hate bigotry in all forms, but I also know how important free speech is in our country as well as for the rest of the world. With that said, this is why I’ll read any book Nadine Strossen puts out. I bought this new book the second I learned about it because I (and I’m sure many others) need reminders as to why free speech is such an important right.
Nadine Strossen is a liberal feminist and the former president of the ACLU. She’s a legal scholar as well. This means she’s not some right-wing person just screaming about free speech while meaning “free speech for me but not for thee”. She has well-thought-out arguments and a slew of examples for why free speech is a necessity. I highly recommend this book as well as every other book she’s written.
Nadine Strossen is a liberal feminist and the former president of the ACLU. She’s a legal scholar as well. This means she’s not some right-wing person just screaming about free speech while meaning “free speech for me but not for thee”. She has well-thought-out arguments and a slew of examples for why free speech is a necessity. I highly recommend this book as well as every other book she’s written.
January 17, 2024
The author is supportive of Supreme Courts strict interpretation of first amendment across a wide variety of cases and situations (e.g. pornography, hate speech, incitement to violence). Written in 2023 so covers many topical issues. Written much like a text book (discrete sections for each part of amendment) but very readable. Surely there are other views to argue her case selections (there always is) but I learned a lot.
May 28, 2025
I have lots of thoughts concerning this book.
As a general review, I think the book is good. It's at times dry, and very repetitive, but it needs to be. Strossen is overall concerned mostly with free speech as it pertains to the First Amendment in the US, and there are a limited number of principles and cases which underlay almost all modern free speech law in the US. I think that very well speaks to the veracity of the principles underlying the First Amendment, being so simple yet so truthful and applicable to a wide variety of situations.
I also think the book is very good in engaging with the reader on an intellectual level. Strossen states in the conclusion that she hopes the reader engages with the book on the lens of "Grappling with" and not just reading. I also quite like Strossen overall.I had the pleasure of listening to her debate the Tennessee Attorney General at an event in early 2025, where I received this book for free.
Overall, I recommend this book to anyone looking to strengthen their own understanding and ideas about free speech.
I do, however, have some criticisms or things which rubbed me the wrong way while reading this book. I'll summarize them here the best I can:
The book focuses a lot on hate speech laws. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it was and is a hot button issue. Where I take issue is that there seems to be a sort of both sides-ing of censorship. I cannot blame Strossen for not talking about the issue of the second Trump admin, the book was seemingly written between 2021 and 2023; however being here now it is so clear that the censorship coming from the "left" in America and that coming from the right are categorically different. I understand and agree with her argument that any speech suppressing laws will ultimately come down harder on progressive causes, please do not interpret anything I say here as pro censorship, but you cannot speak about fatwa ordering the assassination of blasphemers in the same breath you talk about college students protesting Charlie Kirk speaking on their campus. One represents and arch-conservative religious institution with incredible power espousing eliminationist rhetoric, and the other is a group of people attempting to defend their campuses from being safe havens for that same eliminaitonist rhetoric. The dynamic of power is not the same and the purposes are not the same, though they are implied to be the same. That conflation of left and right wing censorship is constant through the book. However, almost all of the censorship that has ever been done has been in service of conservative causes, and that continues to be true. Strossen even admits that, even attempts at "progressive censorship" are often simply used to suppress progressive causes. There are several other issues I take with the book, mostly on similar points to this one, but I don't want this review to become toooooooo long. Perhaps I'll make a video or essay somewhere else. I don't think these issues ruin the book, as I said in the start. I just think that the end product is a book that's, in classic lawer fashion, quite sound legally and fairly sound philosophically but not great politically.
As a general review, I think the book is good. It's at times dry, and very repetitive, but it needs to be. Strossen is overall concerned mostly with free speech as it pertains to the First Amendment in the US, and there are a limited number of principles and cases which underlay almost all modern free speech law in the US. I think that very well speaks to the veracity of the principles underlying the First Amendment, being so simple yet so truthful and applicable to a wide variety of situations.
I also think the book is very good in engaging with the reader on an intellectual level. Strossen states in the conclusion that she hopes the reader engages with the book on the lens of "Grappling with" and not just reading. I also quite like Strossen overall.I had the pleasure of listening to her debate the Tennessee Attorney General at an event in early 2025, where I received this book for free.
Overall, I recommend this book to anyone looking to strengthen their own understanding and ideas about free speech.
I do, however, have some criticisms or things which rubbed me the wrong way while reading this book. I'll summarize them here the best I can:
The book focuses a lot on hate speech laws. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it was and is a hot button issue. Where I take issue is that there seems to be a sort of both sides-ing of censorship. I cannot blame Strossen for not talking about the issue of the second Trump admin, the book was seemingly written between 2021 and 2023; however being here now it is so clear that the censorship coming from the "left" in America and that coming from the right are categorically different. I understand and agree with her argument that any speech suppressing laws will ultimately come down harder on progressive causes, please do not interpret anything I say here as pro censorship, but you cannot speak about fatwa ordering the assassination of blasphemers in the same breath you talk about college students protesting Charlie Kirk speaking on their campus. One represents and arch-conservative religious institution with incredible power espousing eliminationist rhetoric, and the other is a group of people attempting to defend their campuses from being safe havens for that same eliminaitonist rhetoric. The dynamic of power is not the same and the purposes are not the same, though they are implied to be the same. That conflation of left and right wing censorship is constant through the book. However, almost all of the censorship that has ever been done has been in service of conservative causes, and that continues to be true. Strossen even admits that, even attempts at "progressive censorship" are often simply used to suppress progressive causes. There are several other issues I take with the book, mostly on similar points to this one, but I don't want this review to become toooooooo long. Perhaps I'll make a video or essay somewhere else. I don't think these issues ruin the book, as I said in the start. I just think that the end product is a book that's, in classic lawer fashion, quite sound legally and fairly sound philosophically but not great politically.
December 28, 2023
It was a good read.
July 17, 2025
My review for the Law Society Gazette is published here: https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/reviews/...
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews