What do you think?
Rate this book
Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America
A new edition of the most important free speech book of the past half-century, with a new essay by the author on the ensuing fifty years of First Amendment controversies
When Nazis wanted to express their right to free speech in 1977 by marching through Skokie, Illinois—a town with a large population of Holocaust survivors—Aryeh Neier, then the national director of the ACLU and himself a Holocaust survivor—came to the Nazis’ defense. Explaining what many saw as a despicable bridge too far for the First Amendment, Neier spelled out his thoughts about free speech in his 1977 book Defending My Enemy.
Now, nearly fifty years later, Neier revisits the topic of free speech in a volume that includes his original essay along with an extended new piece addressing some of the most controversial free speech issues of the past half-century. Touching on hot-button First Amendment topics currently in play, the second half of the book includes First Amendment analysis of the “Unite the Right” march in Charlotteville, campus protest over the Israel/Gaza war, book banning, trigger warnings, right-wing hate speech, the heckler’s veto, and the recent attempts by public figures including Donald Trump to overturn the long-standing Sullivan v. The New York Times precedent shielding the media from libel claims.
Including an afterword by longtime free speech champion Nadine Strossen, Defending My Enemy offers razor-sharp analysis from the man Muck Rack describes as having “a glittering civil liberties résumé.”
When Nazis wanted to express their right to free speech in 1977 by marching through Skokie, Illinois—a town with a large population of Holocaust survivors—Aryeh Neier, then the national director of the ACLU and himself a Holocaust survivor—came to the Nazis’ defense. Explaining what many saw as a despicable bridge too far for the First Amendment, Neier spelled out his thoughts about free speech in his 1977 book Defending My Enemy.
Now, nearly fifty years later, Neier revisits the topic of free speech in a volume that includes his original essay along with an extended new piece addressing some of the most controversial free speech issues of the past half-century. Touching on hot-button First Amendment topics currently in play, the second half of the book includes First Amendment analysis of the “Unite the Right” march in Charlotteville, campus protest over the Israel/Gaza war, book banning, trigger warnings, right-wing hate speech, the heckler’s veto, and the recent attempts by public figures including Donald Trump to overturn the long-standing Sullivan v. The New York Times precedent shielding the media from libel claims.
Including an afterword by longtime free speech champion Nadine Strossen, Defending My Enemy offers razor-sharp analysis from the man Muck Rack describes as having “a glittering civil liberties résumé.”
- GenresNonfiction
208 pages, Hardcover
Published September 23, 2025
18 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 30, 2025
Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America – A Provocative Masterclass on First Amendment Principles
Rating: 4.8/5
Aryeh Neier’s Defending My Enemy is a towering intellectual work that challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable heart of free speech—defending it even for those whose ideologies we despise. This updated edition, featuring Neier’s original 1977 essay and a searing new analysis of modern controversies, is as timely as it is morally rigorous. As someone who values both civil liberties and social justice, I found myself intellectually exhilarated and emotionally conflicted, which speaks to the book’s power.
Why This Book Matters
Neier’s defense of the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie—a town with a significant Holocaust survivor population—remains one of the most polarizing free speech cases in U.S. history. His argument isn’t just legal; it’s philosophical, rooted in the belief that suppressing hate speech erodes democracy’s foundations. The new essays amplify this stance with razor-sharp critiques of Charlottesville, campus protests, book bans, and Trump-era libel threats. The inclusion of Nadine Strossen’s afterword adds further depth, creating a dialogue that feels urgent in today’s fractured climate.
Emotional and Intellectual Impact
Reading this book is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. As a reader, I recoiled at the idea of protecting Nazis while simultaneously marveling at Neier’s unwavering principle. His personal stakes as a Holocaust survivor lend moral weight to his arguments, making his defense of free speech all the more provocative. The sections on modern heckler’s veto tactics and weaponized disinformation left me grappling with where to draw the line—or whether lines should exist at all.
Constructive Criticism
While Neier’s logic is impeccable, the book could benefit from deeper engagement with counterarguments, particularly from marginalized communities who bear the brunt of hate speech’s consequences. The analysis of digital-age free speech (e.g., social media algorithms amplifying extremism) also feels abbreviated—a missed opportunity given Neier’s expertise.
Final Verdict
Defending My Enemy is essential reading for anyone invested in democracy’s future. It’s not a comfortable book, nor should it be. Neier forces us to sit with the paradox that freedom’s greatest test is protecting its worst abusers.
Thank you to Edelweiss and Ingram Publisher Services for the review copy. This is the kind of book that lingers, provokes debate, and—like the Skokie case itself—reminds us that principles are meaningless if abandoned when they’re hardest to uphold.
Pair with: A strong coffee and a willingness to question your own convictions.
Rating: 4.8/5
Aryeh Neier’s Defending My Enemy is a towering intellectual work that challenges readers to confront the uncomfortable heart of free speech—defending it even for those whose ideologies we despise. This updated edition, featuring Neier’s original 1977 essay and a searing new analysis of modern controversies, is as timely as it is morally rigorous. As someone who values both civil liberties and social justice, I found myself intellectually exhilarated and emotionally conflicted, which speaks to the book’s power.
Why This Book Matters
Neier’s defense of the Nazis’ right to march in Skokie—a town with a significant Holocaust survivor population—remains one of the most polarizing free speech cases in U.S. history. His argument isn’t just legal; it’s philosophical, rooted in the belief that suppressing hate speech erodes democracy’s foundations. The new essays amplify this stance with razor-sharp critiques of Charlottesville, campus protests, book bans, and Trump-era libel threats. The inclusion of Nadine Strossen’s afterword adds further depth, creating a dialogue that feels urgent in today’s fractured climate.
Emotional and Intellectual Impact
Reading this book is an exercise in cognitive dissonance. As a reader, I recoiled at the idea of protecting Nazis while simultaneously marveling at Neier’s unwavering principle. His personal stakes as a Holocaust survivor lend moral weight to his arguments, making his defense of free speech all the more provocative. The sections on modern heckler’s veto tactics and weaponized disinformation left me grappling with where to draw the line—or whether lines should exist at all.
Constructive Criticism
While Neier’s logic is impeccable, the book could benefit from deeper engagement with counterarguments, particularly from marginalized communities who bear the brunt of hate speech’s consequences. The analysis of digital-age free speech (e.g., social media algorithms amplifying extremism) also feels abbreviated—a missed opportunity given Neier’s expertise.
Final Verdict
Defending My Enemy is essential reading for anyone invested in democracy’s future. It’s not a comfortable book, nor should it be. Neier forces us to sit with the paradox that freedom’s greatest test is protecting its worst abusers.
Thank you to Edelweiss and Ingram Publisher Services for the review copy. This is the kind of book that lingers, provokes debate, and—like the Skokie case itself—reminds us that principles are meaningless if abandoned when they’re hardest to uphold.
Pair with: A strong coffee and a willingness to question your own convictions.
September 14, 2025
Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America is a reprint of Aryeh Neier's valuable book Defending My Enemy with an additional chapter addressing more recent issues and a nice Afterword by Nadine Strossen.
I read the original book for the first time in the mid-80s and a couple of times since, including once for a class I took. Each reading served two main purposes for me. First was simply to regain an understanding of the idea of free speech, so primarily an intellectual refresher. The second and more valuable purpose was making me check myself when tempted to start wanting to restrict free speech. This more reactive and emotional reason is one most of us have to grapple with from time to time, especially in today's communication, or miscommunication, environment.
If you're not familiar with the Skokie case, all I'll say is that Neier defended the right of Nazis to march and speak in Skokie. Beyond that, I think you should read this account, it provides the details that make this a landmark case and a brief summary from me might tempt some readers to skip the book, and this is far too important a book to skip.
The chapter that covers more recent events (it is one chapter, not several, but does not skimp on the important details) offers perspective that will do most of us a lot of good and also slightly modifies the original stance about when to not defend free speech (it has to do with the threat of violence).
While much of Strossen's Afterword serves as a synopsis of the original book, the personal examples she cites help to make the points more evident. I think the one that stood out for me was her companion example that aligns with Neier's example of why to defend free speech. Where Neier very effectively, especially in relation to the case he was writing about, uses the example of defending Nazis now so that Jews will also have the freedom to speak Strossen uses Norton's defense of George Wallace speaking in NYC making it possible for H Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael to speak in the south. I think including an example with specific people during a specific time in our history is very effective.
I would highly recommend this to everybody, no exceptions. Maybe it will change your stance if you want to shut down some free speech, maybe it will bring you back to where your ethics actually are rather than away from them (as it does for me), or maybe it will simply give you the words and examples to better argue your case for free speech.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
I read the original book for the first time in the mid-80s and a couple of times since, including once for a class I took. Each reading served two main purposes for me. First was simply to regain an understanding of the idea of free speech, so primarily an intellectual refresher. The second and more valuable purpose was making me check myself when tempted to start wanting to restrict free speech. This more reactive and emotional reason is one most of us have to grapple with from time to time, especially in today's communication, or miscommunication, environment.
If you're not familiar with the Skokie case, all I'll say is that Neier defended the right of Nazis to march and speak in Skokie. Beyond that, I think you should read this account, it provides the details that make this a landmark case and a brief summary from me might tempt some readers to skip the book, and this is far too important a book to skip.
The chapter that covers more recent events (it is one chapter, not several, but does not skimp on the important details) offers perspective that will do most of us a lot of good and also slightly modifies the original stance about when to not defend free speech (it has to do with the threat of violence).
While much of Strossen's Afterword serves as a synopsis of the original book, the personal examples she cites help to make the points more evident. I think the one that stood out for me was her companion example that aligns with Neier's example of why to defend free speech. Where Neier very effectively, especially in relation to the case he was writing about, uses the example of defending Nazis now so that Jews will also have the freedom to speak Strossen uses Norton's defense of George Wallace speaking in NYC making it possible for H Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael to speak in the south. I think including an example with specific people during a specific time in our history is very effective.
I would highly recommend this to everybody, no exceptions. Maybe it will change your stance if you want to shut down some free speech, maybe it will bring you back to where your ethics actually are rather than away from them (as it does for me), or maybe it will simply give you the words and examples to better argue your case for free speech.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
November 12, 2025
Phenomenal defense of free speech, a reminder that defend an enemy’s rights is, in the long run, to defend your own.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews