The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage

by Jonathan Turley

A timely, revelatory look at freedom of speech—our most basic right and the one that protects all the others.

Free speech is a human right, and the free expression of thought is at the very essence of being human. The United States was founded on this premise, and the First Amendment remains the single greatest constitutional commitment to the right of free expression in history. Yet there is a systemic effort to bar opposing viewpoints on subjects ranging from racial discrimination to police abuse, from climate change to gender equity. These measures are reinforced by the public’s anger and rage; flash mobs appear today with the slightest provocation. We all lash out against anyone or anything that stands against our preferred certainty.

The Indispensable Right places the current attacks on free speech in their proper historical, legal, and political context. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not only written for times like these, but in a time like this. This country was born in an age of rage and for 250 years we have periodically lost sight of the value of free expression. The history of the struggle for free speech is the story of extraordinary people—nonconformists who refuse to yield to abusive authority—and here is a mosaic of vivid characters and controversies.

Jonathan Turley takes you through the figures and failures that have shaped us and then shows the unique dangers of our current moment. The alliance of academic, media, and corporate interests with the government’s traditional wish to control speech has put us on an almost irresistible path toward censorship. The Indispensable Right reminds us that we remain a nation grappling with the implications of free expression and with the limits of our tolerance for the speech of others. For rather than a political crisis, this is a crisis of faith.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, Philosophy, Legal, Law, American History

432 pages, Hardcover

First published June 18, 2024

About the author

Jonathan Turley is an American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism.

Reviews

[Papaphilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not sure I have read a better book on the subject of free speech than I have of this one. The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage is a truly important work at a time it is badly needed. Jonathan Turley asks the question: are we in unprecedented times for the threat to free speech? What follows is an in depth discussion of both a history of the subject and his look how free speech is always under attack and it is the United States history of such attacks. What I personally found so interesting is how history's great men were not always so great when to came to free speech.

Jonathan Turley show the parallels of today's attacks on free speech to other times in history and how the argument never changes, but gets cloaked in different clothing. What The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage is so brilliant at is how opposite sides of a political argument will use attack on free speech on their opponents in the name of security, safety, and societal good. This is an amazing job of how one side sees their arguments as Constitutional and the other sides arrests them for sedition.

Be warned, this is not an easy read and it is intellectually challenging making the reader think deeply. This is not your normal social science book preaching to the choir. Professor Turley takes everyone to the wood shed.

The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage is well worth the time.

[Nolan · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first heard about this book when the author was interviewed by Megyn Kelly. A day or so later, Glenn Beck spoke to him about the book. I was so captivated by the Kelly interview that I went ahead and purchased the book from audible. I'm thrilled I did. If you're going to pick a day and a book to read on that day, this Independence Day is the perfect day to read this book. But so well written is it that there is no such thing as a bad day to read this.

The early chapters look at the history of freedom of speech. One of the great redeeming values of this book for me was the author's ability to teach me history in ways I had never learned it in my life. He uplifted me by pointing out that our current time in history isn't the only time in which the nation has been bathed in rage. It felt as though he had a steady hand on the wheel, and he was guiding me skillfully and with tremendous ability exactly where I needed to go. I lack the intellect to be taught by someone of his caliber, but I at least have his book that I can look back at and reread as necessary. And while I'm not one to reread books, this is one I would reread at least every year around Independence Day.

Additional chapters in the book look at various times in the nation's history in which freedom of speech has been in peril. I knew vaguely that John Adams was rather awful when it came to freedom of speech issues, but I was under the erroneous belief that Jefferson was somehow much better. After reading this, I'm not convinced Jefferson was so much better as he was just different. The author moves you through the nation's history from the days of Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Jackson down to the January 6th riot in 2021. I applaud Turley for not joining in the insurrection hysteria that accompanies January 6th. Yes, he rightfully decries those who destroyed and damaged and who protested beyond what ought to have been legal limits. But he also very carefully recognizes the day as a riot more than an insurrection. The vast majority of those individuals who visited the place that day seemed less interested in creating a national overthrow and more interested in questioning the outcome of an election. I wonder if the script had flipped whether they on the left would have been as equally interested in burning and destroying, and I can't help but think they probably would have been. Trump fans aren't the only ones who have screamed about stolen elections in our recent history, after all. We heard the same thing from those who supported Al Gore back in 2000.
I can't stress strongly enough how highly readable this book is. Turley narrates the audio book, and he does a magnificent job with it. Unlike a Glenn Beck book which Beck narrates, Turley never stoops to the world of being a buffoon or a third-rate comic when he narrates. He sees his mission as a serious one. And that mission is to help you and me reaffirm our love for freedom of speech and take the steps he recommends to put it on a more safe and sure footing in the future. One of the biggest problems I have with commentators who write books is that they all too often simply transfer to the printed page the same stuff they scream about on podcasts or on their appearance on television. Turley does none of those things with this book. He takes the high bar of creativity into the stratosphere here, and you don't get constant rehash of old audio clips or old stories that you've been watching and listening to for years. Much of this was new to me and while I don't pretend to be a part of the American history cognoscenti, I certainly thought I had a reasonable grasp on history. The author humbles me on that score great deal, and I loved every second of it. He taught me so much, and I'm so grateful he took the time to write this book. This has to go down as a timeless classic. It's the kind of book you're going to look back on as the National Election draws nigh and the tumult and noise increases. I'm grateful to Kelly and Beck for providing the author an opportunity to talk about his book, and I'm certainly glad he put in an appearance on those programs to let me know it was out there. I benefited hugely from it.

[Mark Youngkin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Turley has written an important book about the importance of free speech and how America's self-appointed elites have consistently sought exceptions to speech that works against their agendas. Turley meticulously makes a case that America intended for free speech to distinguish itself from England, but then found exceptions to their intentions when speech became inconvenient to them. Current attempts to silence those with unpopular views make sense in the historical context Turley has provided. Highly recommended.

[Thomas George Phillips · Rating 5 out of 5]

"There is no such thing as a nonviolent revolution... Revolution is bloody; Revolution overturns and destroys everything..." Malcom X. Professor Turley quotes from Malcom X and many others who express their definition of freedom of speech in this outstanding book.

Professor Turley is fair and balanced, moreover, to both sides of the political spectrum. He expresses his views based entirely from the American Constitution. Professor Turley opines that the United States is in more of a "crisis of faith than a political crisis."

[Michael Springer · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this important and timely work, Professor Turley provides history and context to freedom of speech. The United States is the first country to enshrine the right to free expression in its Constitution. Today, and not for the first time, the First Amendment is under assault by those who want to suppress the speech rights of those with whom they disagree. More alarmingly, a generation of students are being taught that speech must be curtailed as it is a form of "violence." This book reminds us that our most basic rights are at risk, now more than ever, and must be protected with every new generation.

[Kris · Rating 3 out of 5]

More dry than I'd hoped it would be. He spends too much time listing obscure facts from legal cases and American history. The best parts are the last section and the conclusion, where he gets into political theory and philosophy. I wish the entire book had been like that.

I didn't absorb as much as I wanted to. Need to reread one day. I think if I came back to this book in 5-10 years, I would give it a higher rating.

Oddly, all photos throughout the book have no captions. This irked me.

[Josh Issa · Rating 1 out of 5]

I’m actually completely okay with banning Nazism actually!

Yeah I don’t find this convincing at all. Maybe it’s because I have the privilege of not being indoctrinated in America, but I don’t care about absolute freedom of speech. I think it’s very clear that it should be moderated by a concern for hateful speech. I also think that it’s telling that he draws the line at what harms the shareholders and is against university protestors and clearly does not like the Democratic Party of America. His historical takes are pretty nuanced and feel unbiased, but the closer he gets to modern day the more he defends right wing views and holds the party line on January 6. Gross!

[Daniel Moyer · Rating 1 out of 5]

3 STARS until Jonathan's repeated claims in chapter TWENTY, with his defense of Trump, never addressing him as President Trump, and that's my beef; because Turkey fails to acknowledge it was the POTUS, the defeated President Trump's denial of losing, then his repeated attempts to overturn the results and his questionable call to the capitol of thousands of his loyal supporters for a rally for the sole purpose to intimate Congress, and then sending those thousands to the halls of Congress prior to the count that makes President Trump's direct connection with Jan 6th a first in American history.

[Jackie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit repetitive at times (there was one specific line I noticed he had included verbatim in two different chapters) but overall a fair, comprehensive and accessible history of free speech suppression in the United States from Adams and the Federalists up to the present day.

[Paul Sand · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been on an unlucky streak with fiction lately, finding four recently-read novels mediocre or worse, and I'm struggling with a fifth. But I thought this book by Jonathan Turley (lawyer, pundit, lawprof at George Washington U.) was excellent. He makes a powerful argument for a broad, natural-rights interpretation of freedom of speech.

This more or less corresponded to my own view when I started reading the book. But Turley managed to deepen my understanding, and alter my opinions slightly, not just confirm my priors.

It's commonplace to observe that today is not a great time for free speech. But guess what: Turley's history (detailed and interesting) shows that it never has been a time when the right to speak your mind has been without peril, legal and otherwise. There's a quick overview of ancient abuses (too bad, Socrates), an examination of English jurisprudence (also spotty at best), and then we are on to the American experience. He relates various instances of how "rage" has driven harsh words and actions from the citizenry, followed by, all too often, rage-driven overreaction from governmental officials.

Every American schoolkid learns about John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. But Turley goes deeper, revealing (for instance) that Thomas Jefferson sometimes succumbed to the temptations of prosecuting and persecuting free-speakers.

Turley shows the problem over the centuries (and continuing today) is the "functionalist" view of free speech, which views it as a tool, just one tool, in producing desirable outcomes. Those who hold to this position unfortunately see it not as an absolute bright red line prohibiting government intrusion, but subject to trade-offs and compromise.

The most common tradeoff is seen in the concept of sedition, when speech challenges the authority of the state. It's one of the classic gotchas: the people whose authority you are calling into question are the same people who get to decide whether to punish your uppityness. James Madison, one of Turley's heroes, called Adams' anti-sedition legislation "a monster that must forever disgrace its parents."

Turley is in favor of "slaying Madison's monster" by putting seditious words on the "protected" side of the First Amendment. This is a bold stand, as the government finds it useful for prosecution even today. PBS story from 2022: Oath Keepers founder guilty of seditious conspiracy in Jan. 6 case.

Speaking of January 6, Turley makes a compelling case that what happened that day was a riot, not an "insurrection". There was plenty of legal room to prosecute the participants for their violent and obstructive acts, without regard to their speech. He's equally horrified by the abortive efforts to prosecute Donald Trump for "incitement", and to disqualify his 2024 candidacy on 14th Amendment grounds. That's an uncommon argument, and he moved my own view quite a ways toward his own.

[Cheryl · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book provides a very interesting look at the history of free speech in our country. Our country was born in an age of rage and there were many times since the birth of our nation that our constitutional right to free speech has been threatened despite the First Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing it.

Many presidents, (Jefferson, John Adams, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Biden and others) have publicly embraced our right to free speech yet later used the power of the government to punish those who spoke out against them. Adams lauded the patriots who burned an effigy of the king during the American revolution yet later prosecuted those who burned him in effigy during his administration. Jefferson criticized Adams for his Alien and Sedition Act and then used the power of the government to go after those who were critical of his policies when he became president. Lincoln suspended writ of habeus corpus during the Civil War. During WWI, Woodrow Wilson “would show the same troubling pattern of a president who abandoned prior free speech views to crack down on his critics.” FDR used the Smith Act to pursue those who dissented (particularly socialists) regarding our involvement in WWII and placed Japanese people (American citizens and non-citizens) in the US in internment camps during the war. Most recently Biden coerced the press and social media to stifle speech that his administration deemed “disinformation” or “misinformation” regarding Covid-19 as well as his son Hunter’s business dealings abroad. Much of the “misinformation” Biden stifled turned out NOT to be misinformation at all.

It's obvious that so many presidents of both parties (as well as parties that no longer exist) have lauded our right to free speech as an inalienable right until the speech became objectionable to them.

Turley writes, "While we have faced anti-free speech movements throughout our history, the current movement has unique elements that arguably make it far more dangerous to our country. The alliance of academic, media, and corporate interests with the government has created an existential threat to this indispensable right.”

This is a fascinating and enlightening book and well worth reading.

[Robert Melnyk · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book by Jonathan Turley. I'm not sure if Turley is a Republican or a Democrat, but I have always found him to be extremely intelligent, well informed, and very fair. I probably agree with his views more than not, but I always enjoy listening to his opinions. In this book, he explores the history of the concept of free speech. From the very inception of our nation, from the Boston Tea Party, to the signing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, through various flash points in our history, such as Shay's Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Vietnam War, up to January 6, Turley shows how those in power at the time have abused and suppressed the right of free speech whenever it suited their needs at the time. For example, John Adams praised those speaking out against British rule, but then introduced the Alien and Sedition Acts when he did not like people speaking out against his administration. Very interesting and very worth while read.

[Frances · Rating 4 out of 5]

Actually a 4.5….good bit of legal theory and historical context. 100% agree with the content and assessment of censorship during Covid, competing agendas re: Jan 6 and the source of national issues emanating from weak, echo chambers that our colleges and universities have become.

[Gary Evins · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding analysis!

[Bryn · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was thrilled to see this title at the bookstore, because it is on a topic that I feel like we have to re-address in this age of rage, bad behavior, declining civility, disinformation, and social media: The First Amendment. What constitutes "speech?" Is it really commenting threats and FUs! on public figures' social media profiles? Is it for-profit "news" organizations spewing anything they want under the banner of free speech protection? What about when it leads to the Speaker of the House's husband being brutally attakced while asleep in his own home?

I didn't realize that Turley is at best an ideologue if not, to quote my 1L Crim Law professor, a "garden variety political hack." His failure to draw distinctions between citizens coming together to protest taxation from THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES calling on his supporters to "fight like hell" and between unread pamphlets on the merits of socialism to AN ACTUAL RIOT resulting from the President's speech really undermines the credibility of the entire work. There's a whole lot of what-about-ism and false equivalencies.

With that said, it was a nice survey of the free speech camps: the functionalists versus the abolutists. I am firmly a functionalist, that free speech isn't an unalloyed good in itself, but rather only insofar as it contributes to the marketplace of ideas...and more of more of what we have long considered "speech" is doing none of that. Any functionalist, I think, really needs to grapple with the edges of what this means, which Turley identifies. "[To what extent is it true] that 'free speech doesn't mean careless talk?" What does the right for free speech mean outside of the political process?

Turley also doesn't grapple with the challenges in his absolutist view of freedom of speech. How much does truth matter? Are lies constitutionally protected? What would be the purpose of that? How does disinformation undermine the historical need for free speech? In terms of academic freedom, where is the line between acknowledging that hiring a science professor who thinks the sun spins around the earth would be absurd is no more discriminatory than declining to hire a sociology professor who denies our nation's documented history of systemic racism?

Overall, I have more excalamation marks in the margins at his false equivalencies and minimization of Trump's behavior in particular than I feel like I got a solid survey of the history of free speech in this country and a workable model for what it should mean in this age of rage, social media, and AI.

[Dominic Mwetu · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book sets out to explore the vital and complex topic of free speech, a subject that has become increasingly contentious in today’s polarized and increasingly divided society.

The book begins with a strong foundation, tracing the philosophical, legal, and historical developments that have shaped the right to freedom of expression in the broader sense. The early chapters effectively establish the stakes, discussing colonial British history of censorship and the significance of codifying the First Amendment in the particular manner it is enshrined in the US constitution by the founding fathers.

However, as the book progresses, the focus begins to shift away from the broader principles of free speech and instead becomes heavily centered on the events of January 6th and President Donald Trump’s role in the Capitol riot.

While this is undoubtedly an important moment in recent history with significant legal and political implications, the extensive coverage of these events overshadows the book’s initial promise of a broader exploration of free speech.

Rather than maintaining a robust discussion on the evolving challenges to expression including issues like campus speech codes, academic and social media censorship, or the role of corporate influence, the author turns the conversation to a tenacious defense of Trump’s rhetoric and the consequences of that single event.

This focus ultimately weakens the book’s central thesis. Rather than offering a comprehensive analysis of the state of free speech today, the discussion becomes overly narrow and, at times, feels more like political commentary than a deep intellectual examination of the principle at hand. A more balanced approach would include exploring more on the dangers of collusion of government and private sector entities to ensure unchecked suppression , cultural shifts, and the role of technology, would have made for a more compelling and enduring work.

Despite this, the overall writing has clarity and insight, and the book contains moments of valuable analysis. Readers interested in the legal and ethical dimensions of free speech will find some worthwhile discussions, but those looking for a neutral, thorough, principle driven exploration of the topic may be disappointed by its detour into a single political event.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A remarkable piece of literature that every American - our educators should teach Mr. Turley's thesis to our young in schools, older American's need to read his work because he clearly, with excellent research and engaging artistry in the language he uses.

Highly recommend this work to all of you, left, center, up, down, or right, should read!

[Jeremy Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published less than a year ago, Jonathan Turley's "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage" is an essential read for those interested in free speech during our 'Age of Rage'.

Turley organizes his book into five sections, the first of which makes the case for free speech as THE indispensable right, contrasting functional arguments for free speech (utilitariansim, which can limit speech in certain contexts) with the naturalistic, as an inherent right for humans. He describes the context in which the framers of the US constitution drafted the first amendment, opting for a more naturalistic stance than their contemporaries.

The second section outlines a number of historical examples of American politicians immediately undermining this robust protection for free speech. This section begins at the Boston Tea Party, works it's way through various 'rebellions' and wartime protests, the Red Scare and the 60s, before ending with Antifa, MAGA and January 6th.

Turley's exhaustive knowledge of the subject - key legal decisions and critical cases - along with a deep understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the subject is on full display here, and gives his position on January 6th - a riot, not an insurrection, to his mind - a greater weight.

Most interesting to me was his defense of the infamous Q Anon Shaman, whose sentencing appears entirely based on "Madison's Monster" - the highly subjective charge of sedition. He convinced this reader that the shaman's sentencing was extreme, and that he belongs in the same group of the wrongfully prosecuted outlined earlier.

Part III looks closely at influential supreme court justice Oliver Wendel Holmes and his famous 'shouting fire in a theatre' limit to free speech. Widely misunderstood, Turely makes the case that this ruling, and subsequent rulings that twist the original phrasing to make it more palatable, stand as a blight on Holmes' largely exemplary career.

Notably, subsequent rulings removed the terms 'falsely' and 'causing panic' from Holmes' initial ruling, while added the modifier 'crowded' to the theatre, to give additional justification to the limits placed on free speech.

Part IV concludes this history with a 'now what' section, and endorses a "Rockwellian", or idealized concept of free speech. Norman Rockwell, an artist dismissed by critics for his naive Americana, was inspired by an FDR speech to paint a young man addressing a town meeting. This painting, to Turley, represents the best of the First Amendment. He goes on to suggest legal principles to prevent the use of 'fake news' as an excuse to censor speech, to limit academic orthdoxy, and to prevent the use of sedition charges to punish expression.

A short conclusion illustrates the dangers facing free speech today. The book has extensive notes and an index, and will doubtless be a go-to for a new generation of lawyers and legal scholars.

Turley is a prominent lawyer, and there is a necessary legalism to his writing which can read as pedantic to this fan of creativity, but this is a legal history, and the language will doubtless be fine for those with that background. As a Canadian, I struggled a bit with some of the references to American history, but again, fine for his target audience.

I discovered Turley through his webpage, linked in an article on free speech. He writes prolifically and effectively on law, free speech and politics, with a decidedly conservative bent. I was impressed to find his book free of visible political bias - he critiques anyone, left or right, who attempts to compromise the essential right of free speech.

Turley claims credit for coining the phrase 'Age of Rage' and it serves as a running theme throughout this book. He notes that free speech is an essential 'catharsis' for angry thinking, and does not limit his concept of 'rage' to citizens, with the rage of the state against the unwashed troublemakers coming under equally close scrutiny.

This is an important book, coming at a critical moment in the history of free speech in America and the rest of the WEIRD world. I easily overcame the 'at times this feels like homework' vibe and feel my understanding of free speech dramatically improved as a result.

[thewanderingjew · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Indispensable Right, Jonathan Turley, author and narrator
I am sure this is a great book, and I am also sure the experience of the audio book would have been far better if it was read by a professional reader. I love the author, I love the way he expresses ideas, and I agree with a lot of his philosophy, but I definitely do not agree with his decision to be the narrator of his own audiobook. I have restarted the audio, no less than 4 times, hoping to refocus my mind, but each time, the monotony of his tone of voice was so distracting that my thoughts would wander. He kept putting me to sleep.
So, after listening to a bit more than the same hour plus, each time, I felt compelled to give up. I will definitely try the print version, and perhaps then, I will write another review.
Suffice it to say, for the time that I was able to stay attentive, the book was filled with a great deal of information about the practice of free speech and the proponents of the different aspects of it. I did not previously know about how free speech was handled centuries ago. Nor did I know about the different ways in which the right to speak was perceived and also punished by those in power. Often draconian measures were used to punish the transgressors. They were pilloried, suffered amputations and whippings, etc.
Although today we have progressed from the use of draconian means of punishments for those who are believed to be abusing their right to free speech, their voices are still subject to being silenced in other ways. Contrary voices are censored, their work is not published or sold in stores, their opportunities to speak in institutions of higher education are canceled as are their voices. They are removed from social platforms, book review sites, space on news programs or spun negatively when they are aired. They are blackballed and cannot obtain gainful employment. Sometimes, they are imprisoned. Dissenting views are silenced by those in power. The courts, the judges, the schools, professors, teachers, lawyers, employers etc., either march to the beat of those in power or they do not march at all. Those who gain positions in those areas are therefore compelled to prevent others from voicing their dissenting opinions for fear of punishment or being ostracized, as well.
By indoctrinating students in schools, refusing to hire certain candidates for jobs, sentencing them to prison for expressing contrary opinions to the currently accepted ones, speech has essentially been controlled so that only the prevailing ideas of those in power are disseminated.
Hopefully, this book will provide a path forward so that everyone has the right to speak, as long as their speech does not endanger others. Unfortunately, that too, is subject to the ideas of those in power, for they decide what is dangerous, what is hate speech and what is acceptable speech. They decide who is in danger from speech and who is not. They control what is the prevailing thought, so who is in power is most important and so are the elections which put them there. Elections really do have consequences. An open-minded, educated, critical thinking public, not an indoctrinated public, is necessary.
To be continued….

[Mike Kanner · Rating 5 out of 5]

We live in an Age of Rage. But it is not the first. The history of the United States is a history of rhetoric originating with the anger of sectors of the American people with their government. The reaction is usually an attempt to suppress this speech. "Madison's monster has been released time and time again because every generation believes that the rage rhetoric that it is facing represents an unprecedented or existential threat." (324)

The first part of the book is a history of the attempts to suppress the First Amendment including by those like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams that had previously defended or claimed that right. Both used the Alien and Sedition Act against their critics, especially tax protestors. By laying out the history of rage rhetoric and government suppression, he, like Stone in Perilous Times: Free Speech In Wartime shows that the American government regularly calls objections to its policies 'insurrection' and uses its coercive capacity to suppress it.

He spends a great deal of time explaining that the 'yelling fire' quote that is often used to defend suppression of the First Amendment is first, misquoted (Holmes said 'falsely yelling fire') and second, Holmes was far from being a civil libertarian and often ruled in favor of government. Of particular note is that the term 'clear and present danger' is notoriously ambiguous and did not include moral distress which is currently used as a reason to suppress speech.

Three examples of how suppression of speech has become the norm are given at the end of the book.
1. The way in which the Biden administration connected with social media to prevent any discussion of policy during the COVID crisis (including whether it was truly a crisis). He points out, "The alliance of academic, media, and corporate interest with the government has created an existential threat to this indispensable right" (335)
2. The treatment and prosecution of people involved on January 6th. As he points out "It was a riot that was worthy of universal condemnation. However, it was not an insurrection or rebellion akin to the Civil War." (330)
3. As a conservative who taught at a state university, his chapter on how academic freedom and speech have been suppressed not by the right, but by the left. Conservative voices are not only suppressed, they are prosecuted. A reason that I no longer teach is that I found it exasperating to have to defend myself, not because I was wrong, but because I cited uncomfortable aspects of history. My argument was that slavery was an economic system. I used examples of same-race slavery in China, Arab traders enslaving Africans, coastal African empires enslaving individuals from the inland, and Native Americans enslaving any captive no matter their race. This was reported to my department chair that I had supported slavery. The tipping point was having to apologize to a student who defended Cuba because I called him a 'useful idiot.'

Turley's bottom line is that freedom of thought and speech is the very basis of democracy.

[Erik Josephson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jonathan Turley makes the case that there is a very good reason why Freedom of Speech is the first listed in the bill of rights. He goes through history, starting at the foundation of Western civilization and focusing on what led the founding fathers to emphasize the importance of Freedom of Speech.
This makes sense, given the fact that freedom of speech was a large part of what America wanted to be separated from. In English society, there were laws against speaking out against the king. The rationale for this of course was that in order for a society to function, there needed to be social stability. If certain kinds of speech interrupted that stability, the king and Parliment was justified in restricting that speech. There’s a certain logic to this, but as the book shows, there are unintended consequences from restricting speech. The unwanted speech tends to grow in the darkness and it often just makes the problem worse.

There is an irony in the case of the American revolution, because Turley gives the example of the Boston Tea Party as an act of rebellion that was seen as justified by America by the founders, such as John Adams. Yet this was the same John Adams that implemented the Alien and Sedition Acts which cracked down on free speech and was a total disaster.

I was surprised by how much the early government cracked down on Freedom of Speech, given that they just fought a war for that right. I think the lesson here is that it’s easy to talk about the importance of freedom of speech when you have someone to complain about, but when you’re at the levers of power, that equation feels very different.

I loved the cases that he brought up, going through American history, and especially his chapters on Oliver Wendell Holmes. Turley is fiercely on the free speech side of this debate and he blames Holmes on much of the 20th century rationalization against the first amendment, which continues to this day. Holmes was the one who is behind the famous line - you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater. This has become the reasoning behind a lot of cases against free speech. The problem is that there’s no limiting factor in applying this standard. That comes right up to the present day, to where any social media post can be classified as “dangerous.” Fire is now opposing views and the theater is the internet. That’s probably my favorite line from the book.

I thought this was a great and very enlightening read, especially given the recent election and talks of threats to democracy. In recent trends, he lays out a current anti-free speech mood that hearkens back to the McCarthy era, though with the political sides flipped. He has two lengthy chapters at the end of the book making the case - one for the media and in particular what happened with Covid in 2020 - another for the ironic lack of free speech in colleges across the country. He points out the irony in this given the fact that the media and colleges are supposed to be crucial centers of free speech.

In short, very timely and relevant. Highly recommend.

[Michael Lackner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professor Jonathan Turley's book "The Indispensable Right - Free Speech in an Age of Rage" comprehensively discusses the Right to Free Speech. Interestingly, given that "God-given" is a concept that has fallen out of favor, he anchors this right to a related psychological and biological rationale: the right to think, and to express those thoughts in speech, is the essence of what makes us human. Even noting that when this right is denied, the hypothalamus shrinks. He argues that this right is autonomous, existing independently of circumstances, inherent in our very being. He critiques the functionalist view of free speech, which supports but sometimes justifies abrogation of the right depending on its "function" in given social circumstances.

The philosophy and history of the concept are explored. He describes how revolutionary the First Amendment really was, a refutation of the British crime of seditious libel against the Crown. And yet, much of the book describes the undermining of this right as the American Revolutionaries ascended to power and sought to silence their opponents. Off we go, through late 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, over and over again the right restricted by the government and the courts, always in response to an emergency, perceived or real, evoking public and State rage. The Civil War, World War I, World War II, Communism, etc., all precipitated crackdowns and prosecutions, often supported by the courts. Though he also describes the later more expansive court decisions protecting speech.

The latter part of the book describes the most recent "Age of Rage" - the age we are living in today. And how those advocating the abrogation of the Right of Free Speech are resuscitating the very arguments made to defend the British Crown, and later by American leaders against their opponents to "defend our democracy" and to promote "social welfare." Even false ("fake") news was banned by statute at one time.

I actually found the book to be somewhat depressing, as what Turley presents is the story of this purportedly cherished Right of Free Speech abrogated repeatedly, over and over, under the same self-righteous rationales we are hearing today.

I agree with Turley's perspective as to the fundamental indispensability of this right, but also sense he is a desperate voice in the wilderness being drowned out by a cacophony of growling wild beasts - in politics, in government, in academia and in society generally. True advocates of free speech and civil liberties seem to be a dying breed, with scholars like Jonathan Turley and Alan Dershowitz diminishing in number, supplanted by scholars and officials and movements with more authoritarian inclinations, who justify their suppression on the basis of their own benevolence.

The book honestly did not give me much hope for the future, as I fear most people will not heed its warning. Many partisans will just shoot the messenger and think no further.

[Gilbert Stack · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an indispensable guide to the development of the concept of Free Speech and the continuing efforts to censor it by so many governments. It starts with a quick look at the origins of freedom of speech and thought in ancient Greece and quickly moves on to England and the continuing effort of many kings to stop the people from criticizing them including the infamous Star Chambers. Turley then documents how Free Speech concerns were a principal cause of the American Revolution and how many of the Founding Fathers wrote eloquently about the need for Free Speech. They felt so strongly about this that they incorporated it as an inalienable right in the First Amendment. Unfortunately, from that point forward, the same men who had castigated Britain for censoring them began to do the same to their political opponents. The book frankly becomes depressing as generation after generation of American leaders sought to use the very same justifications that Britain had used against its own subjects to justify restricting the speech rights of their fellow citizens in the United States.

Turley takes the reader right up to the presentation day and the January 6 riot on Capitol Hill, exploring the line between free speech and action. He then steps back and explores critical judicial decisions and the developing philosophy of the free speech movement. An example of this is his explanation of how the famous, “You can’t shout fire in a theater,” line was written, and then gives it full context. The line is actually, “You can’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater,” and it was used to confirm the guilty verdict (and therefore a jail sentence) of Shenk, a socialist who wrote a pamphlet encouraging Americans to write to the their congressmen and ask them to repeal the draft law during World War I. Thank about that for a moment. This man was jailed for asking people to lobby their elective representatives. Justice Holmes, who wrote the infamous “fire in a theater” line later came to regret the original decision.

For anyone interested in the health of democracy, this book is a must read. It is easy to follow the narrative and packed full with cogent arguments supporting the need for free speech if democratic institutions are to survive and thrive.

[Socraticgadfly · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'll give it 2.5 stars if generous, or a flat 2 if not. Per a 3-star reviewer, Turley is a "garden variety political hack." My most recent take on Turley is here. Contra a 5-star gusher, there are better books on the First Amendment, and I've read at least two in the past five years.

Anybody who knows 1A in the courts knows the Fries Rebellion, knows that Holmes got it wrong with Schenck and later partially but not totally recovered, knows Brandenburg, etc. One aside on Brandeis being ardent on 1A yet voting with Holmes on a post-Schenck case where Holmes had not yet really repented of Schenk was the only really new thing.

One can compare and contrast functional versions of free speech, in terms of political science philosophy, with more robust versions, like, but not limited to, natural law versions. (I reject the idea of "natural law" for a variety of philosophical reasons.) One can find this in books by authors other than Turley.

In other words, what's good about this book is by no means unique to Turley.

As for the "garden variety political hack"? Per my link, Turley still won't call Jan. 6, 2021 an insurrection. One can call it that without saying that every participant was an insurrectionist. One can look at Trump's words in a neutral light, not deliberately going for the worst light, and see his ties, rather than always putting him in the best light, and not quoting him out of context to frame him to a high turd-polishing. One can note Democratic Congressional electoral college challenges before (I have, as a non-duopoly voter) while noting they're nothing like what Raffy Cruz, to name a name, supported in 2021.

But Turley does none of this.

Possibly one reason I don't 1-star this is precisely its value in showing Turley as a garden variety political hack.

Because there is enough good, it does not go on the bs-pablum shelf. (I almost sarcastically tagged it as fiction.) Because I knew Turley already, while it goes on the meh shelf, it does not go on the disappointment one.

[Nate Hansen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Magnificent. Turley does an excellent job of defending the idea that liberal society cannot, and must not, remain free if the right of its citizens to think and speak as they will, regardless of forum, is abridged.

But Mr. Turley does not ask a more fundamental question: is freedom of speech ever attainable? He brings out a multitude of examples from American history in which the advocates for free speech when it comes to saying that all men should wear blue become the most radical suppressors of free speech when someone else says that all women should wear pink. Or, for that matter, that meaningful differences exist between the sexes. It never occurs to the author to ask: why?

Suppose that free speech is actually a fictive right in a liberal society — or for that matter, in any society? Suppose that there is always an Overton window and that, in deciding what to do about it, the correct thing is not to expand the window infinitely, but to ask whether the view through it is worth having? If this becomes our question, then liberalism’s record — that of giving us a view of nature stripped down to questions of sex and expediency — is rather dim. In the end, it may not be that speech is not the fundamental question in play here, but worship. Turley’s opponents, after all, are right. The set of the thoughts that are able to be expressed in a society will be formative for that society, and, as such, your antecedents are critical to get right before ever you open your mouth.

I don’t think it’s an accident that the Founders began their list of commandments to their government with “Thou shalt not infringe each other’s right to speak,” and that it is always and eternally failing, when a far older — and far more successful — command has always been “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.”

[FatherSwithin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like Johnathan Turley and his legal commentaries on current events. After reading the book, I still like him. I had hoped that his book would be as polished as are his commentaries but, unfortunately, it was not. (He is certainly not a bad writer!) That said, he gives great detail on an aspect of Free Speech and the First Amendment through Colonial and Post-Revolution America up to the present day. And that aspect is that this "indispensable right" has frequently been dispensed with throughout the history of America. There are a few bright lights, however, that opposed this suppression of free speech, for which we can all be quite grateful, which Turley points out. Turley is a legal scholar, and he writes as a legal scholar, but not entirely. If you enjoy a somewhat technical approach to history spun out in legal terms and citing court cases, then I recommend his book. For a law student, it would be a slight step down, and for the average person, it might be a bit of a stretch, but a stretch that would be good to undertake. His remarks on the place of panic in perceived danger in the effort to suppress free speech is worth remembering. And framing the suppression of free speech by authorities as government rage (a reaction to civil rage) is, I think, an effective way of presenting his argument.

[Peggy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well worth the read. Mr Turley covers the history of free speech, and its abrogation, throughout the history of our United States. From it's initial inception with the first amendment, thru it's numerous suspensions, from the colonial Alien and Sedition act, thru the suspension of Civil Rights during the Civil War, and McCarthyism in the 50's, it's a right we've seen suspended more than honored, throughout our history. A very insightful and compelling read. There are numerous examples where the courts have backed-up censorship over freedom of speech. Very easy to yell "sedition" when political views differ from mainstream. A thought provoking read. Currently, our freedom is curtailed by "political correctness", "content moderation", "disinformation", "fake news", etc. Very much an Orwellian world with "double speak" we find ourselves in. No one's figured out how to "thought control" yet, but sometimes it feels like it's coming. Mr. Turley gives a historical overview with how freedom of speech has waxed and waned in our country. Well worth the read. Unless you're an avid history buff, you will probably be surprised by just how much government censorship of and punishment for free speech has transpired in our history.

[Caleb Shook · Rating 2 out of 5]

If the author had taken the parts of the book that discussed the implications of a natural rights theory of free speech (the authors view) and a functionalist view (dominant modern legal approach), then the book would have been a 1/3 of its current length. Sure some of the historical examples of speech suppression are helpful in understanding how prominent politicians views of the first amendment flip once they acquire power.

But the cherry picked episodes exhaust the reader. Instead, the author could have dedicated more time to explaining how corporations, as a result of the freedom of thought and expression being inalienable, deserve an unlimited first amendment right of expression.

While briefly mentioned, the author fails to distinguish his hailing of citizens United while faulting companies for refusing to advertise on sites espousing rhetoric that they have determined to be harmful to their brands and profit margin.

This book is not an academic discussion on the different philosophical approaches to free speech. It is civil libertarians prolonged complaint about a growing intolerance of “rage.”

[Jud Barry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Turley provides a clear explanation of why -- when it comes to free speech -- American history from the very outset is a clear example of the saying "free speech for me, but not for thee." Legal doctrine, e.g. O. W. Holmes's "Schenck" (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), seems to have been more interested in finding ways to abrogate the First Amendment than in upholding it. And contemporary social media/universities? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Very worthwhile read, especially for supporters of unfettered expression, although once the history is past and the legal discussion begins, the prose becomes turgid (maybe it's just me, but do they teach how to write with mud in law school?). Also, some surprising editing lapses, e.g. p. 106: "During the Shays and Whiskey Rebellions, there was no Constitution..." Hello? G. Washington was President during the Whiskey Rebellion.

[I like what I like · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have taken more notes during the reading of this book than during any period of academic study. While I initially found it hard to digest, the presentation of the history of free speech in our country was necessary to understand what followed. It offered some hope that our country will turn itself back from the censure of conservative and libertarian ideas and acknowledge the freedom for all voices to be heard. I’m glad that I had the audio book read by Turley along with an electronic version so that I could copy significant passages and paste them into a notes file.