What do you think?
Rate this book
Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment
A powerful debunking of First Amendment orthodoxy that critiques "reckless speech," which endangers vulnerable groups, and elevates "fearless speech," which seeks to advance equality and democracy.
Freedom of speech has never been more important—or more controversial. From debates about what's permissible on social media, to the politics of campus speakers and corporate advertisements, the First Amendment is incessantly in the news and constantly being held up as the fundamental principle of American democracy. Yet, in reality, it has contributed more to eroding our democracy than supporting it.
In Fearless Speech, Dr. Mary Anne Franks emphasizes the distinction between what speech a democratic society should protect and what speech a democratic society should promote. While the First Amendment in theory is politically neutral, in practice it has been legally deployed most visibly and effectively to promote powerful antidemocratic misogyny, racism, religious zealotry, and corporate self-interest, in other words, reckless speech. Instead, Franks argues, we need to focus on fearless speech—speakers who have risked their safety, their reputations, and in some cases their lives, to call out injustice and hold the powerful accountable. Whether it be civil rights leaders, the women of the #MeToo movement, or pro-choice advocates, Franks shows us how their cases and their voices can allow us to promote a more democratic version of free speech.
Told through an accessible narrative and ending with a call for change that urges us to reevaluate the legal precedents and uses of the First Amendment, Fearless Speech is a revelatory new argument that urges us to reimagine what our society could look like.
Freedom of speech has never been more important—or more controversial. From debates about what's permissible on social media, to the politics of campus speakers and corporate advertisements, the First Amendment is incessantly in the news and constantly being held up as the fundamental principle of American democracy. Yet, in reality, it has contributed more to eroding our democracy than supporting it.
In Fearless Speech, Dr. Mary Anne Franks emphasizes the distinction between what speech a democratic society should protect and what speech a democratic society should promote. While the First Amendment in theory is politically neutral, in practice it has been legally deployed most visibly and effectively to promote powerful antidemocratic misogyny, racism, religious zealotry, and corporate self-interest, in other words, reckless speech. Instead, Franks argues, we need to focus on fearless speech—speakers who have risked their safety, their reputations, and in some cases their lives, to call out injustice and hold the powerful accountable. Whether it be civil rights leaders, the women of the #MeToo movement, or pro-choice advocates, Franks shows us how their cases and their voices can allow us to promote a more democratic version of free speech.
Told through an accessible narrative and ending with a call for change that urges us to reevaluate the legal precedents and uses of the First Amendment, Fearless Speech is a revelatory new argument that urges us to reimagine what our society could look like.
183 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 15, 2024
21 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
October 9, 2025
This is not a serious work on the First Amendment. The book is bereft of intelligent legal analysis. The book is merely a diatribe of Marxist and Bolshevik polemics.
Let’s examine Ms. Franks’ philippics.
In one of her interviews promoting her book, she says: “It's merely to say that by and large, stepping back, structurally speaking, the First Amendment comes into its greatest force and power when whatever is being said is something that either supports or does not at least contradict white male supremacy.”
Ms. Franks has deep seated feelings of inferiority to men, especially white men, and feels that white male supremacy is her excuse for her feelings of inferiority. She contrives an entire fantasy world around the idea that her anger towards men and her fear of men is somehow justified by “white male supremacy.” She defines her notion of “white male supremacy” in one of her other books.
She writes: "It is important to carefully define the term 'white male supremacy.' It is not only the radical and relatively rare view that only white men should have rights. Rather, it is the more subtle and more common view that the rights of white men take priority over the rights of all others."
Her sexist and one-sided view is that the men in society who have the most responsibilities are the men who should subordinate their freedom of speech to Marxist women such as herself.
In concise terms, Ms. Franks wants freedom of speech, but only for herself and her political covey of Marxists and Bolsheviks. In her view, Parrhesia (παρρησία) is Lenin and Trotsky’s feminist narratives, but men should not be permitted to point out that women slaughter about 80 million unborn babies every year in abortion violence, without the consent of either the unborn child or its Father, as those views serve “white male supremacy.”
She offers tired and worn out examples from history of how she thinks white male supremacy underlies all of civilization. She talks about century old trivial examples of segregation (such as a white boxer saying that he didn’t want to fight a Black boxer) and argues that this is proof that the First Amendment serves only the interests of white men, and relegates the interests of highly privileged white women, like herself, to abject subservience and inferiority. Ms. Franks hates men. As a result of her hatred of men, she fears men. She then uses her fear of men as reasonable justification for her hatred of men.
Ms. Franks’ gives the impression that she has never done anything in her life more difficult than climbing a speed bump or admiring herself in the mirror.
Throughout the history of the United States, men (White or of any race) have made great sacrifices and efforts to advance civilization and humanity. Ms. Franks completely overlooks the fact that white men fought numerous wars to defeat fascists and Bolsheviks like herself so that she could live in luxury and enjoy an education at Yale with no boundaries or requirements that she serve anyone but herself.
To quote Camille Paglia: “Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.” Ms. Franks’ misandrist rhetoric is a classic example of what Prof. Paglia is referencing. Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson
Franks attacks free speech as empowering the Ku Klux Klan and completely overlooks the fact that the Ku Klux Klan originated and flourished as an organization completely devoted to advancing the interests of white women such as herself. Constitution of the Women of the Ku Klux Klan Accepted and Adopted June 2nd, 1923 At Washington D. C. We should aggressively speak against the Ku Klux Klan, but not because it served the interests of white supremacy. We should have the First Amendment right to speak against the KKK because it was an organization devoted to advancing white women’s supremacy. Most white woman supremacists, like Franks, use proxy violence [e.g. KKK "White Knights"] to advance their women’s supremacy agendas. Ms. Franks wants a male only draft so that men can fight her wars while she remains stateside in luxury, but doesn’t want any of those men to have freedom of speech unless she approves of their speech.
She gives an example of Supreme Court case [Counterman] from which she concludes that men must have permission from her and her Marxist cohorts before they can communicate with a white woman. In her view, giving men the rights to freedom of speech serves "white male supremacy" so she should be entitled to suppress men's speech. (One gets the impression from her sexist philippics that men should be required to avert their eyes in her presence).
In summary, Ms. Franks’ book is a collection of tired and worn Marxist arguments about why privileged white women, like her, should have supremacy, but if men have any rights, then it threatens her supremacy and therefore men’s rights must be demonized, suppressed and punished. The Marxists of the 1960’s and 1970’s, who promoted and justified the violence and riots that destroyed lives and advancement for humanity, would be proud of her. Her book is nothing but a 21st century reboot of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" (1965), in which he argued that true "liberation" required suppressing intolerant (i.e., right-wing) speech to break capitalism's stranglehold. Repressive Tolerance. Marcuse fomented much gratuitous violence in the 1960's and 1970's.
Let’s examine Ms. Franks’ philippics.
In one of her interviews promoting her book, she says: “It's merely to say that by and large, stepping back, structurally speaking, the First Amendment comes into its greatest force and power when whatever is being said is something that either supports or does not at least contradict white male supremacy.”
Ms. Franks has deep seated feelings of inferiority to men, especially white men, and feels that white male supremacy is her excuse for her feelings of inferiority. She contrives an entire fantasy world around the idea that her anger towards men and her fear of men is somehow justified by “white male supremacy.” She defines her notion of “white male supremacy” in one of her other books.
She writes: "It is important to carefully define the term 'white male supremacy.' It is not only the radical and relatively rare view that only white men should have rights. Rather, it is the more subtle and more common view that the rights of white men take priority over the rights of all others."
Her sexist and one-sided view is that the men in society who have the most responsibilities are the men who should subordinate their freedom of speech to Marxist women such as herself.
In concise terms, Ms. Franks wants freedom of speech, but only for herself and her political covey of Marxists and Bolsheviks. In her view, Parrhesia (παρρησία) is Lenin and Trotsky’s feminist narratives, but men should not be permitted to point out that women slaughter about 80 million unborn babies every year in abortion violence, without the consent of either the unborn child or its Father, as those views serve “white male supremacy.”
She offers tired and worn out examples from history of how she thinks white male supremacy underlies all of civilization. She talks about century old trivial examples of segregation (such as a white boxer saying that he didn’t want to fight a Black boxer) and argues that this is proof that the First Amendment serves only the interests of white men, and relegates the interests of highly privileged white women, like herself, to abject subservience and inferiority. Ms. Franks hates men. As a result of her hatred of men, she fears men. She then uses her fear of men as reasonable justification for her hatred of men.
Ms. Franks’ gives the impression that she has never done anything in her life more difficult than climbing a speed bump or admiring herself in the mirror.
Throughout the history of the United States, men (White or of any race) have made great sacrifices and efforts to advance civilization and humanity. Ms. Franks completely overlooks the fact that white men fought numerous wars to defeat fascists and Bolsheviks like herself so that she could live in luxury and enjoy an education at Yale with no boundaries or requirements that she serve anyone but herself.
To quote Camille Paglia: “Men have sacrificed and crippled themselves physically and emotionally to feed, house, and protect women and children. None of their pain or achievement is registered in feminist rhetoric, which portrays men as oppressive and callous exploiters.” Ms. Franks’ misandrist rhetoric is a classic example of what Prof. Paglia is referencing. Sexual Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson
Franks attacks free speech as empowering the Ku Klux Klan and completely overlooks the fact that the Ku Klux Klan originated and flourished as an organization completely devoted to advancing the interests of white women such as herself. Constitution of the Women of the Ku Klux Klan Accepted and Adopted June 2nd, 1923 At Washington D. C. We should aggressively speak against the Ku Klux Klan, but not because it served the interests of white supremacy. We should have the First Amendment right to speak against the KKK because it was an organization devoted to advancing white women’s supremacy. Most white woman supremacists, like Franks, use proxy violence [e.g. KKK "White Knights"] to advance their women’s supremacy agendas. Ms. Franks wants a male only draft so that men can fight her wars while she remains stateside in luxury, but doesn’t want any of those men to have freedom of speech unless she approves of their speech.
She gives an example of Supreme Court case [Counterman] from which she concludes that men must have permission from her and her Marxist cohorts before they can communicate with a white woman. In her view, giving men the rights to freedom of speech serves "white male supremacy" so she should be entitled to suppress men's speech. (One gets the impression from her sexist philippics that men should be required to avert their eyes in her presence).
In summary, Ms. Franks’ book is a collection of tired and worn Marxist arguments about why privileged white women, like her, should have supremacy, but if men have any rights, then it threatens her supremacy and therefore men’s rights must be demonized, suppressed and punished. The Marxists of the 1960’s and 1970’s, who promoted and justified the violence and riots that destroyed lives and advancement for humanity, would be proud of her. Her book is nothing but a 21st century reboot of Marcuse's "Repressive Tolerance" (1965), in which he argued that true "liberation" required suppressing intolerant (i.e., right-wing) speech to break capitalism's stranglehold. Repressive Tolerance. Marcuse fomented much gratuitous violence in the 1960's and 1970's.
October 21, 2024
A really excellent call for a paradigm shift - fearless speech vs. reckless speech. A necessary read to clarify what we really mean by free speech, by whom and for what reasons.
December 29, 2025
I enjoyed taking several pages of notes on this work and if occassion allows me to revisit them, I may add them here in refined form.
I received a copy of the book at a colloquium on free speech at my alma mater after a remrkable performance from Professor Franks. She debated a past president of FIRE during which she articulated compelling and irrefutable points to every overused and nice-in-theory-sounding argument from the libertarian free speech absolutist perspectives that are so lacking in perspective. She said everything (and beyond) I wished I could summon in rebuttal to the common misconceptions and distortions of the principles of free expression that are wantonly deployed to shirk responsibility for abusive and reckless rhetoric avalanching forth from masssive media platforms--our tech industry has the unconscionable market advantage of having no liability for the injuries stemming directly and indirectly from the commercial activity that generates their considerable profit. Even more impressively, she reacted unfazed and unflapped when her interlocutor read outloud a public death/rape threat directed at her by some anonymous commenter, denounced it in a token fashion, then argued for the assailant's liberty to post such invective without fear of private reprisal. I came away from the event empowered because it is clear the author practices what the scholarship preaches.
Dr. Franks' book asks us not to elevate the hateful drivel that is so commonly championed often through crocodile tears and with prideful constitutionalism. Instead, she would have us support the transgressive, the artistic, the marginalized, and those taking on empirically demonstrable risks with their speech. Her review of the historical record is a strong counterpart to the idea lofty ideals of avowed "absolutists." Not that the absolutist position coheres logically. The book takes to task the inconsistenties of arguments supported by libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives alike often by considering who bears the risk of speech, who profits from it, and delving deeper to discover the less-often considered perspectives of those not as protected by our legal system.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," they may say, well... whose death? How many must die and suffer and live cowed in fear and have their own speech chilled so that tech corporations can enjoy the spoils of unfettered bigotry and harassment?
I received a copy of the book at a colloquium on free speech at my alma mater after a remrkable performance from Professor Franks. She debated a past president of FIRE during which she articulated compelling and irrefutable points to every overused and nice-in-theory-sounding argument from the libertarian free speech absolutist perspectives that are so lacking in perspective. She said everything (and beyond) I wished I could summon in rebuttal to the common misconceptions and distortions of the principles of free expression that are wantonly deployed to shirk responsibility for abusive and reckless rhetoric avalanching forth from masssive media platforms--our tech industry has the unconscionable market advantage of having no liability for the injuries stemming directly and indirectly from the commercial activity that generates their considerable profit. Even more impressively, she reacted unfazed and unflapped when her interlocutor read outloud a public death/rape threat directed at her by some anonymous commenter, denounced it in a token fashion, then argued for the assailant's liberty to post such invective without fear of private reprisal. I came away from the event empowered because it is clear the author practices what the scholarship preaches.
Dr. Franks' book asks us not to elevate the hateful drivel that is so commonly championed often through crocodile tears and with prideful constitutionalism. Instead, she would have us support the transgressive, the artistic, the marginalized, and those taking on empirically demonstrable risks with their speech. Her review of the historical record is a strong counterpart to the idea lofty ideals of avowed "absolutists." Not that the absolutist position coheres logically. The book takes to task the inconsistenties of arguments supported by libertarians, conservatives, liberals, and progressives alike often by considering who bears the risk of speech, who profits from it, and delving deeper to discover the less-often considered perspectives of those not as protected by our legal system.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," they may say, well... whose death? How many must die and suffer and live cowed in fear and have their own speech chilled so that tech corporations can enjoy the spoils of unfettered bigotry and harassment?
August 1, 2024
You can also see this review, along with others I have written, at my blog, Mr. Book's Book Reviews.
Thank you, PublicAffairs, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment, by Mary Anne Franks.
This book does an excellent job looking at “free speech” and the harms that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings have done towards it. The theme of the book is “While the First Amendment in theory is neutral with regard to the subject matter of the speech it protects, in practice, it has been deployed most visibly and effectively in the service of powerful antidemocratic interests: misogyny, racism, religious fundamentalism, and corporate self-interest.” The author does a great job showing how that has been the case, but also points out that it doesn’t have to be that way.
The book tells many stories of individuals and groups being harmed by the protection of horrible speech, as well as those who have not been protected by the First Amendment. The author also presents ideas on how to fix the problem.
I give this book an A. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on July 31, 2024.
Thank you, PublicAffairs, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
Mr. Book just finished Fearless Speech: Breaking Free from the First Amendment, by Mary Anne Franks.
This book does an excellent job looking at “free speech” and the harms that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings have done towards it. The theme of the book is “While the First Amendment in theory is neutral with regard to the subject matter of the speech it protects, in practice, it has been deployed most visibly and effectively in the service of powerful antidemocratic interests: misogyny, racism, religious fundamentalism, and corporate self-interest.” The author does a great job showing how that has been the case, but also points out that it doesn’t have to be that way.
The book tells many stories of individuals and groups being harmed by the protection of horrible speech, as well as those who have not been protected by the First Amendment. The author also presents ideas on how to fix the problem.
I give this book an A. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, an A equates to 5 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).
This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews
Mr. Book originally finished reading this on July 31, 2024.
August 17, 2025
📚 Book Review: Fearless Speech by Dr. Mary Anne Franks
💜💜💜💜💜
An essential, urgent read and a bold call to action. In Fearless Speech, Dr. Mary Anne Franks delivers a scathing, insightful, and deeply necessary critique of how the First Amendment has too often been weaponized to uphold power and privilege—while silencing the vulnerable and marginalized.
Through riveting examples and razor-sharp analysis, Franks draws a critical distinction between reckless speech—speech that endangers, oppresses, and shields the powerful—and fearless speech—speech that risks safety, status, and even life to challenge injustice and demand equity. From civil rights leaders to the women of #MeToo, she shows us what it truly means to speak truth to power.
This book doesn’t just question First Amendment orthodoxy (or the Supreme Court’s increasingly distorted interpretation of it 😱)—it dismantles it. If you’ve ever wondered why hate speech, misogyny, and corporate interests are so zealously protected in the name of “free speech” (👀 looking at you, ACLU), Fearless Speech gives you the tools—legal, historical, and moral—to push back.
💥 Quote:
“The First Amendment has become less a shield for the powerless than a sword for the powerful.” — Mary Anne Franks
Highly, highly recommend for anyone who cares about democracy, justice, and reimagining what true freedom of expression should look like. This book is fearless—and it just might change how you think about free speech forever. 💜
November 3, 2024
I have long been an unquestioning believer in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ version of the First Amendment and the idea that the cure for ‘bad speech’ is ‘good speech.’ And, to be honest, I would have thought that belief pretty unshakeable. Until I read Mary Anne Franks’ book, that is. She painstakingly lays out the case that despite our romanticized view of the First Amendment as promoting a thriving democracy of diverse ideas and protecting the speech of dissenters, its history has been one of protecting ‘reckless speech’ by those who already have power. I found her chapter critiquing the idea of social media as it is run by big tech to be particularly powerful, important, and unsettling for the future. To be honest, I didn’t want to be persuaded by Franks because I had so fervently ascribed to the traditional view, and I still have questions about how to best foster ‘fearless speech’ and curb ‘reckless speech.’ But here’s the bottom line: Fearless Speech is a beautifully written critique that if one approaches it with an open mind creates new possibilities for what it really means to protect free speech for those whose voices are currently stifled and marginalized. I can't recommend this remarkable book highly enough.
July 14, 2025
I'm not even sure how exactly to review this book. Franks is a professor of law who looks at the intersection of civil rights and free speech. She spoke at the college where I work and blew my socks off with her presentation. As someone who's career in journalism centered around the freedom of the press aspect of the First Amendment, it is disquieting to consider the ways the First Amendment has been used to suppress free speech over the decades. Franks makes a compelling argument for rethinking the approach to "free speech" that currently gives priority to the holders of the power, the established forces, largely white, largely male, and largely wealthy, over the marginalized who's free speech is more often denied by those forces. I also look forward to reading Franks' book "The Cult of the Constitution", which I expect to be an equally scathing indictment of the use of the founding document to support well-established forces of oppression over the weak and marginalized.
February 12, 2025
I’ve always kind of side eyed the idea that all speech, even the most abhorrent, deserves protection - but went along with it, shit, even proudly advocated for it, because, well, I’ve been swayed by organizations like the ACLU, understanding the logic in protecting all speech regardless of what it is, thinking that if good or positive speech is protected then it’s only fair or just to also protect bad or harmful speech.
But this book has caused me to reevaluate, and I’m grateful for it, especially as we rapidly approach autocracy. I’ve also never really known how to counter arguments such as “social media deserves immunity from absolutely everything because of free speech” and now, thanks to this book, I do.
For anybody tired of the powerful weaponizing the concept of free speech, please read this book.
Please read this book, period. Such an informative and empowering read.
But this book has caused me to reevaluate, and I’m grateful for it, especially as we rapidly approach autocracy. I’ve also never really known how to counter arguments such as “social media deserves immunity from absolutely everything because of free speech” and now, thanks to this book, I do.
For anybody tired of the powerful weaponizing the concept of free speech, please read this book.
Please read this book, period. Such an informative and empowering read.
March 7, 2025
An important book that more people should read! In an era in which anti-democratic interests, misogyny, racism, religious fundamentalism and corporate self-interests sadly seem to prevail, this is a must read!
While in theory the 1st Amendment is neutral with regard to speech, Mary Ann Franks exposes that myth, illustrating exactly how the U.S. Constitution has instead been manipulated to protect reckless speech that promotes the values of white male supremacy.
Lest you think this is some liberal leaning rant, Franks doesn’t pull any punches, also taking aim at the ACLU and other so-called “progressive institutions” that have time and again supported efforts to delegitimatize “fearless speech.”
And she doesn’t just highlight the problem; she offers specific suggestions on how to rectify the matter, most importantly detailing exactly why (and how) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be reformed to hold the tech industry accountable.
While in theory the 1st Amendment is neutral with regard to speech, Mary Ann Franks exposes that myth, illustrating exactly how the U.S. Constitution has instead been manipulated to protect reckless speech that promotes the values of white male supremacy.
Lest you think this is some liberal leaning rant, Franks doesn’t pull any punches, also taking aim at the ACLU and other so-called “progressive institutions” that have time and again supported efforts to delegitimatize “fearless speech.”
And she doesn’t just highlight the problem; she offers specific suggestions on how to rectify the matter, most importantly detailing exactly why (and how) Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act should be reformed to hold the tech industry accountable.
September 18, 2025
This was great, only wish it was a bit longer. Would have loved even more coverage of historical moments where people have been punished for speech (she covers that, just wanted more of it). But overall excellent and a great book to understand how free speech has never existed for everyone; it has mostly existed to protect power and often punishes people who speak out against power and hierarchy. In essence, it is often fearless speech (bc it challenges power) that is punished and reckless speech (that harms those with less power) that is protected
April 25, 2025
Went to the book talk by Dr. Mary Anne Franks and bought this book. The title “fearless speech” is from the Greek word “parrhesia”, a concept often translated as free speech, but bears a closer meaning to “fearless speech”. In this book Dr. Mary Anne Franks debunks the myth of first amendment and tracks with actual legal cases of where free speech, is in fact just “free speech for some”. She then paints a picture of what true, free, fearless speech would look like. Incredibly educating book.
July 30, 2025
Free speech is more complicated than simply saying anything, as this author explains in this timely book. A surprising conclusion is that the First amendment offers a very narrow framework for protecting speech, and history shows it is often used to protect and entrench already-powerful interests, not to promote a free and equal exchange of diverse ideas. The author also offers examples of how to broaden and improve public debate by taking more creative approaches to speaking fearlessly.
May 5, 2025
Taking this book at face value almost misses the point. “Fearless Speech” is not so much as book as it is an articulation of a criticalist methodology that we should apply to all forms of orthodoxy. “Fearless Speech” is a poignant example of the concept Franks discusses—fearless speech. This book should be required reading for law students, if only to challenge one’s conceptions of law.
Read
May 31, 2025Good, invigorating, helped me clarify some thoughts I’ve struggled to wrangle for a long time now, even though I disagree with parts. Did lol at the “and ANOTHER thing — FUCK the coward at the **** 😡😡” every three pages bc yes AND also they’re so huge, they have other practice areas etc (but is that not exactly how people defend like the V50?!!)
February 16, 2025
Franks bashes civil libertarianism in places, but her own view seems to agree with civil libertarianism on central points, and even if not, a civil libertarian can agree with a lot of what she says, including her thought-provoking central idea of fearless speech.
February 14, 2025
This book is so critical in our current political moment in the U.S. Thank you, Mary Anne Franks, for your fearlessness in writing it.
February 18, 2025
10/10, we should ALL read this book.
April 21, 2025
A Really good examination of the history of free speech doctrine in the 1st Amendment. A deep dive into legislative policy changes that could help curb reckless speech and encourage fearless speech.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews