What do you think?
Rate this book
The Soul of the First Amendment
The nation’s most celebrated First Amendment lawyer“explores the American right to free speech in this thoughtful and concise volume” (Publishers Weekly). The right of Americans to voice their beliefs without government approval or oversight is protected under what may well be the most honored and least understood addendum to the US Constitution—the First Amendment. Floyd Abrams, a noted lawyer and award-winning legal scholar specializing in First Amendment issues, examines the degree to which American law protects free speech more often, more intensely, and more controversially than is the case anywhere else in the world, including democratic nations such as Canada and England. In this lively, powerful, and provocative work, the author addresses legal issues from the adoption of the Bill of Rights through recent cases such as Citizens United. He also examines the repeated conflicts between claims of free speech and those of national security occasioned by the publication of classified material such as was contained in the Pentagon Papers and was made public by WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden. “Abrams’s engaging and plain-spoken reflections will be of interest to those already steeped in constitutional law as well as young readers curious about the nation’s founding ideals . . . For Abrams, one inescapable truth applies across the history of First Amendment disputes. To allow the government to determine whose speech can be regulated . . . is, as [his] fascinating history shows, literally to play with fire.”—The Wall Street Journal “He dives into historic and contemporary controversies that test our adherence to these principles, noting, ‘Speech is sometimes ugly, outrageous, even dangerous.’”—The Washington Post
170 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 25, 2017
99 people are currently reading
460 people want to read
About the author
Floyd Abrams
10 books10 followersFloyd Abrams is a partner at Cahill, Gordon & Reindel in New York City. Described by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as the “most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age,” Abrams is currently the William J. Brennan Visiting Professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
July 24, 2017
I gravitated to this book as a citizen who is strongly opposed to the Cheeto-in-Chief and his band of collaborators in the can't-do-anything Congress, but I'll compliment it for other reasons. Floyd Abrams, lawyer and scholar on the First Amendment, schools his readers well and warns that the First Amendment is as much under attack from the left as it is from the right.
Do I agree with everything Abrams says? No, but I respect what he says. I still bristle at the fact that the Citizens United decision deems corporations as "people" and allows mega-millions to be poured into elections, but Abrams points out that all of this money has not had the effect that those opposed to CI anticipated. Trump, for instance, did not spend as much as many of his GOP opponents in the presidential run but still won. Still, I would argue that Trump is a bad example because he used his polished P.T. Barnum act to get a lot of free publicity from the press.
Though the first amendment protects freedom of religion, of the press, of the right to peaceably assemble, and of the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, Abrams chiefly focuses on its freedom of speech aspects. He points out that the negative language ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press...") is important because the Founding Fathers meant to protect citizens from government and its addiction to power and controlling thought to meet its own agenda. King George III taught them well.
Thus, Abrams' views are Libertarian in nature as, no matter what, he keeps coming back to the sacred nature of freedom of speech, almost unconditionally. It protects hate speech. It protects beyond-stupid speech. It protects harangues and advertisements for divisive causes. Remarkably, in some cases, it even protects people from libel and slander convictions--certainly to a much greater extent than could be expected in England, say. And, if you are a "public figure" like a politician, you are especially fair game.
What's more, if you think your privacy is of greater importance than the press's right to report, the First Amendment thinks otherwise. In Europe, people are allowed to use recourse against entities like Google, forcing it to delete stories from the past if the person in question feels it is embarrassing or detrimental to his personal reputation AND if the old news is deemed no longer relevant. Gray area, that, but Abrams champions the people's right to know, and thus big bad Google--not because he favors Big Brother, but because he favors the First Amendment.
You'll find a lot of quotable quotes in this little primer, but I failed to mark them because this is a library book I'm reading. A lot could be used against Herr Trump, including this Patrick Henry gem: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Take that, Mr. "Make America Great Again" who won't reveal your tax returns or your business transactions or your Russian engagements or your Wall Street collusions (to name but a few).
Interestingly, though, Abrams quotes Henry in the section where he applies an asterisk to his holy of holies (the 1st) because Henry made an exception for matters military where free speech might compromise an operation and where secrecy is necessary. As Vietnam proved, secrecy and the military is a dicey game. Yes, you want to protect servicemen's lives on an operation and thus keep your mouth shut if you learn critical information, but no, you do not want to enable the crap that went on in Vietnam and could again--crap that costs lives in great numbers due to military hubris and ineptitude (see Pentagon Papers). This section also looks at the good and the bad of Assange and Snowden, vis-a-vis the First Amendment. And you thought it was simple?
Finally, if you're a Supreme Court or Founding Father fan, you'll love the constant allusions to history included in Abrams' book. History and politics, liberals and conservatives, individual rights and the government...they're all here.
To look at life from both sides, then, it might be worth a look for the politically-engaged, right or left, Fox or MSNBC.
Do I agree with everything Abrams says? No, but I respect what he says. I still bristle at the fact that the Citizens United decision deems corporations as "people" and allows mega-millions to be poured into elections, but Abrams points out that all of this money has not had the effect that those opposed to CI anticipated. Trump, for instance, did not spend as much as many of his GOP opponents in the presidential run but still won. Still, I would argue that Trump is a bad example because he used his polished P.T. Barnum act to get a lot of free publicity from the press.
Though the first amendment protects freedom of religion, of the press, of the right to peaceably assemble, and of the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, Abrams chiefly focuses on its freedom of speech aspects. He points out that the negative language ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press...") is important because the Founding Fathers meant to protect citizens from government and its addiction to power and controlling thought to meet its own agenda. King George III taught them well.
Thus, Abrams' views are Libertarian in nature as, no matter what, he keeps coming back to the sacred nature of freedom of speech, almost unconditionally. It protects hate speech. It protects beyond-stupid speech. It protects harangues and advertisements for divisive causes. Remarkably, in some cases, it even protects people from libel and slander convictions--certainly to a much greater extent than could be expected in England, say. And, if you are a "public figure" like a politician, you are especially fair game.
What's more, if you think your privacy is of greater importance than the press's right to report, the First Amendment thinks otherwise. In Europe, people are allowed to use recourse against entities like Google, forcing it to delete stories from the past if the person in question feels it is embarrassing or detrimental to his personal reputation AND if the old news is deemed no longer relevant. Gray area, that, but Abrams champions the people's right to know, and thus big bad Google--not because he favors Big Brother, but because he favors the First Amendment.
You'll find a lot of quotable quotes in this little primer, but I failed to mark them because this is a library book I'm reading. A lot could be used against Herr Trump, including this Patrick Henry gem: "The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Take that, Mr. "Make America Great Again" who won't reveal your tax returns or your business transactions or your Russian engagements or your Wall Street collusions (to name but a few).
Interestingly, though, Abrams quotes Henry in the section where he applies an asterisk to his holy of holies (the 1st) because Henry made an exception for matters military where free speech might compromise an operation and where secrecy is necessary. As Vietnam proved, secrecy and the military is a dicey game. Yes, you want to protect servicemen's lives on an operation and thus keep your mouth shut if you learn critical information, but no, you do not want to enable the crap that went on in Vietnam and could again--crap that costs lives in great numbers due to military hubris and ineptitude (see Pentagon Papers). This section also looks at the good and the bad of Assange and Snowden, vis-a-vis the First Amendment. And you thought it was simple?
Finally, if you're a Supreme Court or Founding Father fan, you'll love the constant allusions to history included in Abrams' book. History and politics, liberals and conservatives, individual rights and the government...they're all here.
To look at life from both sides, then, it might be worth a look for the politically-engaged, right or left, Fox or MSNBC.
May 29, 2017
I read this as an ordinary citizen with no expertise in Constitutional law or the US Supreme Court. The single most important reaction I had to Abrams' short book was this: Although I found myself disagreeing with much that he said, I was obliged to seriously ask myself WHY I disagreed. Were the grounds upon which my reactions were based intellectual or emotional? I still haven't decided. This fact on its own tells me that Abrams' book is well worth reading.
May 6, 2025
Whew.
When you decry the Citizens United ruling but have to concede that Floyd Abrams is brilliant and makes some difficult-to-refute points… I’m a bit reminded of how I felt during law school when I read a Scalia opinion or dissent: I might heartily disagree with what I believe will be the practical outcome, but I cannot deny the lucidity of the argument.
Finishing Abrams’ book makes me want to revisit Times v Sullivan, Buckley v Valeo, and Citizens United.
Part of me wants to give the book a relatively low rating simply because of my feelings about Citizens United, but no. Abrams, in my view, is a brilliant thinker, and I need to give credit where it’s due.
When you decry the Citizens United ruling but have to concede that Floyd Abrams is brilliant and makes some difficult-to-refute points… I’m a bit reminded of how I felt during law school when I read a Scalia opinion or dissent: I might heartily disagree with what I believe will be the practical outcome, but I cannot deny the lucidity of the argument.
Finishing Abrams’ book makes me want to revisit Times v Sullivan, Buckley v Valeo, and Citizens United.
Part of me wants to give the book a relatively low rating simply because of my feelings about Citizens United, but no. Abrams, in my view, is a brilliant thinker, and I need to give credit where it’s due.
September 5, 2017
It's rare for anybody to change my mind on something (because I think I know everything about anything already), but Abrams managed to do exactly that in chapter V of his "Soul of the First Amendment." He must have been a wonderful teacher; he has a real gift for making the arcane intelligible. He's relentless in following the principle of free speech to its logical conclusion (based on existing Supreme Court holdings). In particular, he does a fine job disentangling the concepts of "free speech" and "fairness" and distinguishing between what is constitutional and what seems equitable.
For anyone open to a dispassionate discussion of the First Amendment and its implications for free speech, this book is a must. Highly recommended.
For anyone open to a dispassionate discussion of the First Amendment and its implications for free speech, this book is a must. Highly recommended.
June 14, 2018
As usual, I learned that things are more complicated than they first appear. The issues were intelligently discussed in this book and I came away with a better understanding of the first amendment, at least as it relates to freedom of speech.
May 19, 2017
Brilliant, crisp, clear and convincing. A long essay from the dean of the First Amendment bar
November 2, 2017
This is a short paean to the free speech protections afforded by the First Amendment. The author, Floyd Abrams, is a(n) (in)famous lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues. He represented Senator Mitch McConnell in the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court case, for which he was lambasted by Keith Olbermann as “the Quisling of freedom of speech in this country”. The characterization is, of course, ludicrous; but luckily for Keith, Citizens United reaffirmed the longstanding principle of First Amendment jurisprudence that corporately-structured entities like MSNBC and GQ have as much of a right to free speech as any other organization or any individual, so he can say more-or-less whatever he wants and broadcast it from whatever 1950s suburban atomic bomb shelter he decides to call home.
But what’s so special about the First Amendment, anyway? I mean, how much influence could one sentence, codified into constitutional law, have on our civic life? Let’s take a look at this puppy.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [Emphasis mine]
Damn, son. That’s quite a sentence, isn’t it? With one stroke of a writing quill, the federal government (and, later, the state governments as well, as post-Civil War amendments applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states) was forever deprived of the authority to make laws that would have the effect of suppressing speech, either by accident or by design. The result of this extraordinarily-broad, negatively-defined articulation, as well as its subsequent interpretation by the federal courts, especially in the twentieth century, has been to make the United States the most speech-protective country in the world; even in comparison with the other liberal democracies.
Forming a tiki-torch-bearing white supremacist pep rally and marching through the night chanting “Jews will not replace us”, like those dipshits in Charlottesville? Protected speech.
Distributing “crush videos”, in which animals are cruelly and sadistically killed for amusement? Protected speech.
Pornographic content edited to look like real child pornography? Protected speech.
Standing outside a memorial service for a fallen soldier and proclaiming, perhaps within earshot of the soldier’s grieving family, that God willed the death of the soldier to punish the United States for its toleration of homosexuality? Protected speech, my friend.
Unlike in other democracies, in which the government often takes a more proactive role in regulating speech for the ostensible purpose of maintaining democratic values, the American Constitution places restrictions not on what can be said by private citizens, but rather on what can be suppressed by the government. The right to free speech is presupposed and uncircumscribed; it is not for the citizen to justify what he says, how he says it, or whether he is eligible to say it based on who he is or what his purposes are; the onus is on government to provide a compelling reason for why certain types of speech should be restricted.
American jurisprudence operates on the proposition that the risks associated with government interference in the realm of public discourse are greater than those associated with whatever illiberal, antidemocratic, self-serving, or hateful things might be said. Contrary to the European approach, the First Amendment leaves it up to “We the People” to determine for ourselves what is true and what is not true, what is conducive to our collective values and aspirations and what is detrimental to them.
The negative approach to free speech extends to civil law as well, and the difference between American and European speech protection is most saliently expressed by comparing American and British libel laws. In Britain, a large majority of plaintiffs in libel cases win damages or favorable settlements, while in the United States, most libel suits are dropped or dismissed.
This is because under the British system, the defendant must demonstrate that the speech in question is true, while under the American system, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the speech in question is false, and that the person or organization making the speech knew that it was false, and that the false speech had the effect of causing recoverable damages to the plaintiff.
British libel laws have led, at times, to patently unjust awards for plaintiffs. For example, Lance Armstrong won damages and settlements in suits against multiple British publications because the publications had suggested that Armstrong had engaged in illegal doping. This was not known for sure at the time, and so the defendants were unable to satisfactorily demonstrate that their statements were true. But of course, it later turned out that the statements were true. A British court ordered media companies to pay someone a substantial sum of money for making a claim about him that turned out to be correct!
The tastiest part of this book for me was Abrams’s defense of the Citizens United ruling. Opponents of the ruling (some polls indicate that as much as 80 percent of the public believes the Supreme Court made the wrong decision) assert that the Supreme Court determined that money is speech, and, most damningly of all, that CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE [dun dun dunnnnnnn!]. Now, according to this narrative, corporations will be able to use their wealth to flood the political system by greasing the elbows of politicians and political parties and to drown out the voices of ordinary people with their own self-serving misinformation.
The truth is that the court did not say that money is speech, or that corporations are people. It said that the FEC does not have the authority to prohibit the usage of money to make speech, and that corporately-structured organizations have the same right to free speech that individuals have.
Arguments against the ruling have been logically shoddy, at best. It may sound reasonable to say that corporations shouldn’t be able to use their money to promote political causes, until you consider that pretty much every newspaper in the country is corporately-owned, and that most of them have always made political endorsements and have spent their money to distribute these endorsements.
You might counter that certain corporations, like media outlets, could be an exception to this rule because they have a journalistic function; but the right to free speech in America has never been dependent on whether or not one is a journalist. You and I have always had as much of a right to free speech as a journalist has, so why should the organizations we are involved with—be they our business, our labor union, or a not-for-profit entity like Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association—be barred from using their money to make speech on matters of public importance? If Planned Parenthood favors abortion rights and wants to support candidates who will lessen restrictions on abortion, why should their corporate status preclude them from doing so?
Oftentimes the arguments against corporate political speech boil down to an assertion that it’s unfair for corporations to use their money for political speech because for-profit corporations have more money to spend on speech than non-profits or individuals. But this isn’t relevant as a First Amendment issue. If you’re concerned about the effect of wealth inequality on the political process, then the solution is to elect a congress that will address wealth inequality; it is not to open a legal can of worms by restricting the right to free speech based on who is making the speech, or why, or how.
This goes back to the proposition I discussed earlier: that the First Amendment leaves it up to us to determine what speech is true and beneficial. Cigar-chomping industrial tycoons have the right to make political endorsements or to broadcast political messages that they think will benefit their interests. It is our responsibility as citizens of a free country to educate ourselves about what those interests are and whether they would benefit us, and to act accordingly.
But what’s so special about the First Amendment, anyway? I mean, how much influence could one sentence, codified into constitutional law, have on our civic life? Let’s take a look at this puppy.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [Emphasis mine]
Damn, son. That’s quite a sentence, isn’t it? With one stroke of a writing quill, the federal government (and, later, the state governments as well, as post-Civil War amendments applied the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states) was forever deprived of the authority to make laws that would have the effect of suppressing speech, either by accident or by design. The result of this extraordinarily-broad, negatively-defined articulation, as well as its subsequent interpretation by the federal courts, especially in the twentieth century, has been to make the United States the most speech-protective country in the world; even in comparison with the other liberal democracies.
Forming a tiki-torch-bearing white supremacist pep rally and marching through the night chanting “Jews will not replace us”, like those dipshits in Charlottesville? Protected speech.
Distributing “crush videos”, in which animals are cruelly and sadistically killed for amusement? Protected speech.
Pornographic content edited to look like real child pornography? Protected speech.
Standing outside a memorial service for a fallen soldier and proclaiming, perhaps within earshot of the soldier’s grieving family, that God willed the death of the soldier to punish the United States for its toleration of homosexuality? Protected speech, my friend.
Unlike in other democracies, in which the government often takes a more proactive role in regulating speech for the ostensible purpose of maintaining democratic values, the American Constitution places restrictions not on what can be said by private citizens, but rather on what can be suppressed by the government. The right to free speech is presupposed and uncircumscribed; it is not for the citizen to justify what he says, how he says it, or whether he is eligible to say it based on who he is or what his purposes are; the onus is on government to provide a compelling reason for why certain types of speech should be restricted.
American jurisprudence operates on the proposition that the risks associated with government interference in the realm of public discourse are greater than those associated with whatever illiberal, antidemocratic, self-serving, or hateful things might be said. Contrary to the European approach, the First Amendment leaves it up to “We the People” to determine for ourselves what is true and what is not true, what is conducive to our collective values and aspirations and what is detrimental to them.
The negative approach to free speech extends to civil law as well, and the difference between American and European speech protection is most saliently expressed by comparing American and British libel laws. In Britain, a large majority of plaintiffs in libel cases win damages or favorable settlements, while in the United States, most libel suits are dropped or dismissed.
This is because under the British system, the defendant must demonstrate that the speech in question is true, while under the American system, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the speech in question is false, and that the person or organization making the speech knew that it was false, and that the false speech had the effect of causing recoverable damages to the plaintiff.
British libel laws have led, at times, to patently unjust awards for plaintiffs. For example, Lance Armstrong won damages and settlements in suits against multiple British publications because the publications had suggested that Armstrong had engaged in illegal doping. This was not known for sure at the time, and so the defendants were unable to satisfactorily demonstrate that their statements were true. But of course, it later turned out that the statements were true. A British court ordered media companies to pay someone a substantial sum of money for making a claim about him that turned out to be correct!
The tastiest part of this book for me was Abrams’s defense of the Citizens United ruling. Opponents of the ruling (some polls indicate that as much as 80 percent of the public believes the Supreme Court made the wrong decision) assert that the Supreme Court determined that money is speech, and, most damningly of all, that CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE [dun dun dunnnnnnn!]. Now, according to this narrative, corporations will be able to use their wealth to flood the political system by greasing the elbows of politicians and political parties and to drown out the voices of ordinary people with their own self-serving misinformation.
The truth is that the court did not say that money is speech, or that corporations are people. It said that the FEC does not have the authority to prohibit the usage of money to make speech, and that corporately-structured organizations have the same right to free speech that individuals have.
Arguments against the ruling have been logically shoddy, at best. It may sound reasonable to say that corporations shouldn’t be able to use their money to promote political causes, until you consider that pretty much every newspaper in the country is corporately-owned, and that most of them have always made political endorsements and have spent their money to distribute these endorsements.
You might counter that certain corporations, like media outlets, could be an exception to this rule because they have a journalistic function; but the right to free speech in America has never been dependent on whether or not one is a journalist. You and I have always had as much of a right to free speech as a journalist has, so why should the organizations we are involved with—be they our business, our labor union, or a not-for-profit entity like Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association—be barred from using their money to make speech on matters of public importance? If Planned Parenthood favors abortion rights and wants to support candidates who will lessen restrictions on abortion, why should their corporate status preclude them from doing so?
Oftentimes the arguments against corporate political speech boil down to an assertion that it’s unfair for corporations to use their money for political speech because for-profit corporations have more money to spend on speech than non-profits or individuals. But this isn’t relevant as a First Amendment issue. If you’re concerned about the effect of wealth inequality on the political process, then the solution is to elect a congress that will address wealth inequality; it is not to open a legal can of worms by restricting the right to free speech based on who is making the speech, or why, or how.
This goes back to the proposition I discussed earlier: that the First Amendment leaves it up to us to determine what speech is true and beneficial. Cigar-chomping industrial tycoons have the right to make political endorsements or to broadcast political messages that they think will benefit their interests. It is our responsibility as citizens of a free country to educate ourselves about what those interests are and whether they would benefit us, and to act accordingly.
December 9, 2017
The book had potential but unfortunately, the tenor was defensive in its efforts to justify the Citizens United decision in the context of the First Amendment. The book is less a book then an essay of rumination. Periodically the author hits on a topic of interest and then just as quickly abandons the thought. It felt hastily and lazily written. The book could have been good but unfortunately missed the mark. If you are a student of the First Amendment this is probably not the one for you.
August 6, 2017
A slim and well-crafted reflection on how the First Amendment has evolved in the last century, and how it is unique in the world. Worth reading in these troubled times, and re-reading every couple of years.
November 11, 2019
Fascinating, informative, short, and well-written (except as noted below) explanation of the freedom of speech. The emphasis is on the United States, but one of the most interesting aspects was the description of the laws and conventions in other democracies like Canada and European countries, which differ from US practices in significant ways.
The author is a prominent attorney in this field who was one of the successful attorneys in the controversial Citizens United case. The chapter on Citizens United was the only disappointment in the book. Maybe he was too close to his subject, but to me the chapter was not clear, and I finished it not feeling I understood his argument very well. Even the writing style was different from the rest, with many more long complex legalistic-sounding sentences. I finally read it a second time and found it more understandable, but I still considered it less satisfying than other chapters.
The book is definitely still worth your time, though. I had to stop myself from repeatedly stopping to read interesting sections to my husband, because I definitely recommend it to him and don't want to spoil his fun!
This is a great book to recommend to your friends and is likely to spark some interesting discussion.
Rereading for the Sunday Philosophers. Just as interesting the second time, but I am struck more by the complicated and not-very-good sentence structure. My husband listened to the book and was spared my problems having to parse the sentences; the narrator did it for him.
The author is a prominent attorney in this field who was one of the successful attorneys in the controversial Citizens United case. The chapter on Citizens United was the only disappointment in the book. Maybe he was too close to his subject, but to me the chapter was not clear, and I finished it not feeling I understood his argument very well. Even the writing style was different from the rest, with many more long complex legalistic-sounding sentences. I finally read it a second time and found it more understandable, but I still considered it less satisfying than other chapters.
The book is definitely still worth your time, though. I had to stop myself from repeatedly stopping to read interesting sections to my husband, because I definitely recommend it to him and don't want to spoil his fun!
This is a great book to recommend to your friends and is likely to spark some interesting discussion.
Rereading for the Sunday Philosophers. Just as interesting the second time, but I am struck more by the complicated and not-very-good sentence structure. My husband listened to the book and was spared my problems having to parse the sentences; the narrator did it for him.
November 7, 2018
We've had some of the most expensive elections in US history since the Citizens United decision, but all of the predictions about the dire consequences of corporate money drenched elections have "proved to be inaccurate"? Pull the other one; it has bells on.
Don't get me wrong: some of what's in this book was interesting and educational. I learned a lot, especially about the drifting apart and difference between american free speech law and european free speech law. However, the parts in which Abrams tries to defend money as speech (mostly the last couple chapters, although it is sprinkled throughout) just don't make sense to me. The cases used to undergird the decisions seem to speak more about other factors that money, politics, and corporate megadonors, and I don't understand why they were cited in defense of this new doctrine. Also, it very much irritates me how Abrams seems to deliberately misunderstand that politicians beholden to megadonors seem to become selectively deaf about the issues that their average constituents think are important and want to see legislation on. Who is speaking, why, and their ties become much more relevant in light of this fact.
Despite the fact that some parts of this were good, The Soul of the First Amendment is not something I would recommend. There's too little information on the most important case in modern free speech and civic concerns, Citizens United, and what information there is comes across as too slanted and preachy (this isn't helped by the fact that Abrams is the lawyer who argued that case).
Don't get me wrong: some of what's in this book was interesting and educational. I learned a lot, especially about the drifting apart and difference between american free speech law and european free speech law. However, the parts in which Abrams tries to defend money as speech (mostly the last couple chapters, although it is sprinkled throughout) just don't make sense to me. The cases used to undergird the decisions seem to speak more about other factors that money, politics, and corporate megadonors, and I don't understand why they were cited in defense of this new doctrine. Also, it very much irritates me how Abrams seems to deliberately misunderstand that politicians beholden to megadonors seem to become selectively deaf about the issues that their average constituents think are important and want to see legislation on. Who is speaking, why, and their ties become much more relevant in light of this fact.
Despite the fact that some parts of this were good, The Soul of the First Amendment is not something I would recommend. There's too little information on the most important case in modern free speech and civic concerns, Citizens United, and what information there is comes across as too slanted and preachy (this isn't helped by the fact that Abrams is the lawyer who argued that case).
May 15, 2018
I bought the book after seeing Mr. Abrams speak at a small gathering in NYC. His talk was a tantalizingly good intro to some of the themes or issues he covers in the book.
Abrams' book does not disappoint but, as you'll see, it is fairly brief. It may be short, but it packs a lot into it.
His reasoning when covering hot topic issues pertaining to the first amendment is fresh in many places (none more so than his take on the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision.)
It is important to also consider that, in an age of manufactured outrage by the Right or Left, Abrams' manages to be thought provoking while remaining totally respectful of those which have differing opinions. I highly recommend this book.
Abrams' book does not disappoint but, as you'll see, it is fairly brief. It may be short, but it packs a lot into it.
His reasoning when covering hot topic issues pertaining to the first amendment is fresh in many places (none more so than his take on the Citizen's United SCOTUS decision.)
It is important to also consider that, in an age of manufactured outrage by the Right or Left, Abrams' manages to be thought provoking while remaining totally respectful of those which have differing opinions. I highly recommend this book.
June 25, 2017
Abrams is a working lawyer and a bone fide First Amendment scholar. He represented the New York Times in the Pentagon Papers matter and Mitch McConnell in Citizens United. This book is little more than a series of lectures, but it touches on interesting subjects, such as how differently speech is treated in Europe and other democratic nations--not nearly as sacredly as in the U. S.--and how the First Amendment is part of the marrow of our nation and why. However, I was surprised to learn that it was not used extensively to protect speech until the 20th Century. This is an interesting discussion by someone who knows his constitutional law, but I imagine that it has limited appeal.
December 30, 2020
Like most books on legal analysis, the book actually contains very little soul.
It does offer a sweeping review of the history of free speech in America and a comparison between American and European free speech law. It also discusses the impact of the first amendment on corporate spending in politics and the tension between journalism and national security.
The role of art and religion were barely mentioned by the author who opted for dry substance instead of soul to defend his position.
It does offer a sweeping review of the history of free speech in America and a comparison between American and European free speech law. It also discusses the impact of the first amendment on corporate spending in politics and the tension between journalism and national security.
The role of art and religion were barely mentioned by the author who opted for dry substance instead of soul to defend his position.
March 24, 2022
A pretty interesting book focusing on the freedom of expression. It presents a relatively standard view of the first amendment, as a libertarian, anti-governmental censor device. The book is written in a style that is clear and can easily be understood by both lawyers and non-lawyers. Some of the history seems a bit wonky, and the author's observation that until around a hundred years ago, the First Amendment had not been invoked to protect from all types of censorship (of obscenity, or even governmental criticism) seems to suggest that his assertion that the First Amendment has meant the same thing since the Founding needs to be qualified.
The book gets a lot more interesting when comparing the American conception of freedom of expression against the hate speech prohibitions found in many other Western nations (which can lead to prosecution of all types of pure political speech even if it represents real interests in protecting minorities) and the libel law of England (where the presumption is that the allegedly libelous statement is false, and the defendant has the burden of proving it's true, leading to many successful libel suits where later it was revealed that the defendant was in fact telling the truth, including at least two political scandals, the US has passed laws to deny enforcement of libel judgments from countries that do not share our conception found in Sullivan). The general attitude of the book is that the government cannot be trusted to make censorship decisions neutrally. The author also criticizes the EU's right to be forgotten as removing many newsworthy topics from discussion.
Probably most controversial to many is the author's defense (in book and in the court) of Citizens v. United. The author makes the point that the First Amendment does not try to "equalize" the playing field by limiting the speech of the powerful, or at times right before the election or compel newspapers to provide equal platforms. The book argues that there are other laws to deal with concentration of economic power, not by limiting the speech of the certain groups. The author makes the further point that individuals should not lose the ability to fund political speech merely because they organized in the form of a corporation, and that media companies were being potentially hypocritical by opposing Citizens v. United, which would give their corporations unlimited ability to comment on politics while prohibiting other non-media corporations from using their funds to spread their political views. And the author adds, it's not easy to disentangle political favors for support from the ordinary workings of a responsive democracy. The author concludes that at least in the few years after Citizens v. United, the fear of corporate spending to sway politics was not even borne out.
Another great topic the book discusses is the role and responsibility of the press in publishing secretive material. The author had some role in the Pentagon Papers case, and discussed how reporters would carefully select what was to be published to prevent dangers to national security. While on one hand, the government is likely to be overbroad in claiming national security as a reason to keep documents secret, that doesn't mean that sometimes the government isn't correct. The book compares the careful selection of keeping certain secrets from the indiscriminate data dumps of today by wikileaks in particular (including radio jamming frequencies used to prevent denotation of remote bombs in iraq, the names and locations of various Afghanistan informants, the location of a smallpox lab and communications channel) or other leakers and outlets on surveillance of foreign heads of state, the sources of highly classified information, whistleblower ids or democratic donor ids. The book prescribes a return to a time when press had the internal commitment to at least considering legitimate government claims of privilege instead of releasing information that could be harmful to national security.
The book is a concisely written defense of the traditional place of the first amendment. The author was already worried that certain elements wanted to restrict freedom of expression, whether it was in Hill v. Colorado or Breyer's conception of restricting certain voices to ensure an equal playing ground. A clear throated defense of our first amendment, which is more needed than ever.
The book gets a lot more interesting when comparing the American conception of freedom of expression against the hate speech prohibitions found in many other Western nations (which can lead to prosecution of all types of pure political speech even if it represents real interests in protecting minorities) and the libel law of England (where the presumption is that the allegedly libelous statement is false, and the defendant has the burden of proving it's true, leading to many successful libel suits where later it was revealed that the defendant was in fact telling the truth, including at least two political scandals, the US has passed laws to deny enforcement of libel judgments from countries that do not share our conception found in Sullivan). The general attitude of the book is that the government cannot be trusted to make censorship decisions neutrally. The author also criticizes the EU's right to be forgotten as removing many newsworthy topics from discussion.
Probably most controversial to many is the author's defense (in book and in the court) of Citizens v. United. The author makes the point that the First Amendment does not try to "equalize" the playing field by limiting the speech of the powerful, or at times right before the election or compel newspapers to provide equal platforms. The book argues that there are other laws to deal with concentration of economic power, not by limiting the speech of the certain groups. The author makes the further point that individuals should not lose the ability to fund political speech merely because they organized in the form of a corporation, and that media companies were being potentially hypocritical by opposing Citizens v. United, which would give their corporations unlimited ability to comment on politics while prohibiting other non-media corporations from using their funds to spread their political views. And the author adds, it's not easy to disentangle political favors for support from the ordinary workings of a responsive democracy. The author concludes that at least in the few years after Citizens v. United, the fear of corporate spending to sway politics was not even borne out.
Another great topic the book discusses is the role and responsibility of the press in publishing secretive material. The author had some role in the Pentagon Papers case, and discussed how reporters would carefully select what was to be published to prevent dangers to national security. While on one hand, the government is likely to be overbroad in claiming national security as a reason to keep documents secret, that doesn't mean that sometimes the government isn't correct. The book compares the careful selection of keeping certain secrets from the indiscriminate data dumps of today by wikileaks in particular (including radio jamming frequencies used to prevent denotation of remote bombs in iraq, the names and locations of various Afghanistan informants, the location of a smallpox lab and communications channel) or other leakers and outlets on surveillance of foreign heads of state, the sources of highly classified information, whistleblower ids or democratic donor ids. The book prescribes a return to a time when press had the internal commitment to at least considering legitimate government claims of privilege instead of releasing information that could be harmful to national security.
The book is a concisely written defense of the traditional place of the first amendment. The author was already worried that certain elements wanted to restrict freedom of expression, whether it was in Hill v. Colorado or Breyer's conception of restricting certain voices to ensure an equal playing ground. A clear throated defense of our first amendment, which is more needed than ever.
June 14, 2020
1. This early part of this book breaks down the surprisingly short history of the 1s amendment.
What do I mean? Well until the 1900s there wasn't a single major case that really addressed this amendment, and before the 1950s or so the first amendment was essentially useless. Speech and the content of the speech were restricted in schools, media, and the general public to where it was as if the 1st amendment didn't exist.
2. The author proceeds to describe the role of the first amendment, as a tool meant to restrict the government from infringing upon our freedom of speech regardless of the content of that speech (unless it puts people in danger or something like that).
In other words, despite how some feel. the first amendment isn't meant to restrict the speech of people (like KKK members) or restrict the speech of corporations (like the NRA). It's only meant to restrict the amount of well...restrictions the government can place on speech that we give.
3. Floyd Abrams goes on to show us how in countries without a "first amendment" freedom of speech is very very restricted. In fact, in certain countries in Europe, one can make a claim to the European Court or whatever and have information on them removed if it's "not relevant". Interestingly enough a lot of this information removed from the internet and other databases has consisted of various criminal records/ scandals that have proven to be true.
4. Floyd Abrams proceeds to defend the perhaps most hated Supreme Court decision of all time (Plessy vs. Ferguson was liked by many during the day it was decided...it wasn't hated almost universally until decades later), which he ironically he litigated as an attorney.
He makes a compelling argument on behalf of this case centered around his idea that the goal of the first amendment is to restrict the government from being able to restrict speech we give.
A.. He points out that despite popular opinion Citizens vs. United was a case about whether or not a politically engaged group could use funds that were partially funded by corporate contributions, to place on American television a documentary that was harshly critical of a leading candidate for the presidential nomination.
People tend to skip over the context surrounding the case...but if you consider the context/facts you tend to not hate on it as much.
B. He goes on to mention that previous cases have clearly established that corporations have 1st amendment rights and these organizations in previous cases have included News Paper companies and the NAACP.
Would you really want to remove 1st amendment protections from the NCAAP or NewsPapers?....probably not and he claims without this case organizations like these wouldn't be protected fully under the 1st amendment.
I'm not going to go down all the arguments he presented...but yeah and TBH I don't agree with him completely on Citizens V. United...I believe that only organizations that are press related or are organized not for financial gain but to advance issues (like the NCCAP and ACLU) should be recognized as an assembly of persons/ press entities protected by the 1st amendment. But I don't disagree with him as much as others on here do, I believe that the "look beyond the veal" does apply to certain corporations such as the ones I listed.
5. The last 30 pages or so of the book are....eh how do I put this. They are kinda off topic and boring. They focus on whether or not the media should report certain things and how much of an obligation the media has towards the country it works for.
Overall, this is a borderline good book not great though.
What do I mean? Well until the 1900s there wasn't a single major case that really addressed this amendment, and before the 1950s or so the first amendment was essentially useless. Speech and the content of the speech were restricted in schools, media, and the general public to where it was as if the 1st amendment didn't exist.
2. The author proceeds to describe the role of the first amendment, as a tool meant to restrict the government from infringing upon our freedom of speech regardless of the content of that speech (unless it puts people in danger or something like that).
In other words, despite how some feel. the first amendment isn't meant to restrict the speech of people (like KKK members) or restrict the speech of corporations (like the NRA). It's only meant to restrict the amount of well...restrictions the government can place on speech that we give.
3. Floyd Abrams goes on to show us how in countries without a "first amendment" freedom of speech is very very restricted. In fact, in certain countries in Europe, one can make a claim to the European Court or whatever and have information on them removed if it's "not relevant". Interestingly enough a lot of this information removed from the internet and other databases has consisted of various criminal records/ scandals that have proven to be true.
4. Floyd Abrams proceeds to defend the perhaps most hated Supreme Court decision of all time (Plessy vs. Ferguson was liked by many during the day it was decided...it wasn't hated almost universally until decades later), which he ironically he litigated as an attorney.
He makes a compelling argument on behalf of this case centered around his idea that the goal of the first amendment is to restrict the government from being able to restrict speech we give.
A.. He points out that despite popular opinion Citizens vs. United was a case about whether or not a politically engaged group could use funds that were partially funded by corporate contributions, to place on American television a documentary that was harshly critical of a leading candidate for the presidential nomination.
People tend to skip over the context surrounding the case...but if you consider the context/facts you tend to not hate on it as much.
B. He goes on to mention that previous cases have clearly established that corporations have 1st amendment rights and these organizations in previous cases have included News Paper companies and the NAACP.
Would you really want to remove 1st amendment protections from the NCAAP or NewsPapers?....probably not and he claims without this case organizations like these wouldn't be protected fully under the 1st amendment.
I'm not going to go down all the arguments he presented...but yeah and TBH I don't agree with him completely on Citizens V. United...I believe that only organizations that are press related or are organized not for financial gain but to advance issues (like the NCCAP and ACLU) should be recognized as an assembly of persons/ press entities protected by the 1st amendment. But I don't disagree with him as much as others on here do, I believe that the "look beyond the veal" does apply to certain corporations such as the ones I listed.
5. The last 30 pages or so of the book are....eh how do I put this. They are kinda off topic and boring. They focus on whether or not the media should report certain things and how much of an obligation the media has towards the country it works for.
Overall, this is a borderline good book not great though.
November 11, 2024
I recommend this short book to anyone who is interested in or likes to read about free speech. Floyd Abrams doesn't actually get to the "soul" of the First Amendment as much as it addresses some of the modern entanglements that free-speech theorists find themselves in these days.
Abrams does explain some about the history of the First Amendment, particularly how some of the Founding Fathers didn't think such an addition to the constitution was needed. But the rest of the book jumps to more current discussions. How does the U.S. compare to other countries that restrict speech about topics such as the Holocaust? What are the ethical decisions journalists have to use when whistleblowers provide them with important but possibly damaging information? And why did Abrams argue in favor of corporations in the controversial Citizens United case a few years ago?
Part of Abrams' argument in favor of Citizens United is that those opposed to the decision cried wolf about the dangers of corporate speech. He contends that corporations have not had the level of election influence that critics had feared (He makes a distinction between "corporations" and other seemingly powerful entities.). And he refers to previous cases such as Buckley v. Valeo to point out that the Supreme Court has supported free speech in the past, especially when it comes to political speech. Abrams reminds us in the book that the Court did rule in Citizens that the disclosure requirements of campaign finance laws were constitutional, a position he supports. But I finished the book not favoring the Citizens United decision, mainly because he failed to adequately explain why corporations deserve the same rights as people.
I'm guessing this corporations-as-people argument will get more complicated in the years to come as more robots and bots and AI generators replace the actual people in corporations. Perhaps then the courts will be forced to decide if freedom of speech is a right reserved for humans.
Abrams does explain some about the history of the First Amendment, particularly how some of the Founding Fathers didn't think such an addition to the constitution was needed. But the rest of the book jumps to more current discussions. How does the U.S. compare to other countries that restrict speech about topics such as the Holocaust? What are the ethical decisions journalists have to use when whistleblowers provide them with important but possibly damaging information? And why did Abrams argue in favor of corporations in the controversial Citizens United case a few years ago?
Part of Abrams' argument in favor of Citizens United is that those opposed to the decision cried wolf about the dangers of corporate speech. He contends that corporations have not had the level of election influence that critics had feared (He makes a distinction between "corporations" and other seemingly powerful entities.). And he refers to previous cases such as Buckley v. Valeo to point out that the Supreme Court has supported free speech in the past, especially when it comes to political speech. Abrams reminds us in the book that the Court did rule in Citizens that the disclosure requirements of campaign finance laws were constitutional, a position he supports. But I finished the book not favoring the Citizens United decision, mainly because he failed to adequately explain why corporations deserve the same rights as people.
I'm guessing this corporations-as-people argument will get more complicated in the years to come as more robots and bots and AI generators replace the actual people in corporations. Perhaps then the courts will be forced to decide if freedom of speech is a right reserved for humans.
June 19, 2025
To my generation of lawyers, Floyd Abrams may well be the final word on the First Amendment. I recall first seeing his name associated with the representation of the NY Times in the Pentagon Papers cases during the Vietnam War era. His briefs filed in appellate and the Supreme Court in truly famous cases are read and studied by lawyers and law students who want to master good legal writing and reasoning. His brief essay in Soul is simply a contination of Abrams' scholarship, skills, and authoritative reasoning.
I believe, though, that his chapter regarding the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United may have to be revisited. Many, most of his predictions about the consequences of the Citizens United have, in my view, largely been proved to have had effects diametrially opposed to what Abrams projected when he wrote this book in 2017. That, however, does not detract from is legal reasoning and his powerful and, I believe, correct advocacy of the First Amendment, which, to my thinking, is perhaps the one precept in law which makes America different and better than other democracies.
We live in an age where strong political and civil disagreements are sometimes conflated with what the Constitution requires. Those political issues--such as the consequences of Citizens United--especially in the age of Donald Trump should be decided in political fora, which ironically includes the very strong, almost poisonist debate that the Consitution calls for. Trum is a threat to the rule of law at virtually every step he takes. We are more dependent now than ever on strong, vigourous, and uncensored debate. As Abrams reminds us, the First Amendment is really about the government not imposing a way of thinking on Americans or censoring that very speech which strengthens democracy. The people are entitled to their say, says the First Amendment and that's as it should be.
I believe, though, that his chapter regarding the effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United may have to be revisited. Many, most of his predictions about the consequences of the Citizens United have, in my view, largely been proved to have had effects diametrially opposed to what Abrams projected when he wrote this book in 2017. That, however, does not detract from is legal reasoning and his powerful and, I believe, correct advocacy of the First Amendment, which, to my thinking, is perhaps the one precept in law which makes America different and better than other democracies.
We live in an age where strong political and civil disagreements are sometimes conflated with what the Constitution requires. Those political issues--such as the consequences of Citizens United--especially in the age of Donald Trump should be decided in political fora, which ironically includes the very strong, almost poisonist debate that the Consitution calls for. Trum is a threat to the rule of law at virtually every step he takes. We are more dependent now than ever on strong, vigourous, and uncensored debate. As Abrams reminds us, the First Amendment is really about the government not imposing a way of thinking on Americans or censoring that very speech which strengthens democracy. The people are entitled to their say, says the First Amendment and that's as it should be.
September 17, 2017
Henry VI part 2 - Dick ...mmmm perhaps.
When, in elementary school, we were introduced to the idea of The Constitution of the U.S., we were also read the litany of the Amendments; some of which we remembered as adults.
When I began reading Abrams selection of essays I had no premonition that I could become excited about the First Amendment; surprise, surprise.
Abrams discusses, in some detail, aspects of the Amendment in six categories: 1- historical tracing the debates before ratifying the Constitution - 2- compares the level of legal protection afforded speech in the U.S. with that of other countries -3- describes a First Amendment case decided in 1941 (Bridges v. California) rejecting English law as a guide for the U.S. dealing specifically with free speech - 4 & 5- examine two areas wherein American law deviates from laws applied elsewhere (fascinating exploration of unlimited spending by individuals and corporation in political campaigns, rulings contrary to those in other democratic nations) - 6- issues that law alone cannot resolve (think conscience) and may be more controversial than the legal ones.
Chapter 6 interested me the most - more than once I re-read sentences/paragraphs to assure myself that I had a basic understanding of both sides of an issue.
Published in 2017 - references are made to the U.S. political campaigns - (considering the aftermath- this week's newspaper listed the date and theaters of where tickets are available for such a Hillary promoting her book; Ed Snowden 'via satellite' discussing his issues - and other speakers. Consider the WikiLeaks which leads us to ponder, the now catch phrase 'FAKE NEWs'...you can go there.
Give me a month or so , and I will read these essays again; not just food for thought rather a banquet.
When, in elementary school, we were introduced to the idea of The Constitution of the U.S., we were also read the litany of the Amendments; some of which we remembered as adults.
When I began reading Abrams selection of essays I had no premonition that I could become excited about the First Amendment; surprise, surprise.
Abrams discusses, in some detail, aspects of the Amendment in six categories: 1- historical tracing the debates before ratifying the Constitution - 2- compares the level of legal protection afforded speech in the U.S. with that of other countries -3- describes a First Amendment case decided in 1941 (Bridges v. California) rejecting English law as a guide for the U.S. dealing specifically with free speech - 4 & 5- examine two areas wherein American law deviates from laws applied elsewhere (fascinating exploration of unlimited spending by individuals and corporation in political campaigns, rulings contrary to those in other democratic nations) - 6- issues that law alone cannot resolve (think conscience) and may be more controversial than the legal ones.
Chapter 6 interested me the most - more than once I re-read sentences/paragraphs to assure myself that I had a basic understanding of both sides of an issue.
Published in 2017 - references are made to the U.S. political campaigns - (considering the aftermath- this week's newspaper listed the date and theaters of where tickets are available for such a Hillary promoting her book; Ed Snowden 'via satellite' discussing his issues - and other speakers. Consider the WikiLeaks which leads us to ponder, the now catch phrase 'FAKE NEWs'...you can go there.
Give me a month or so , and I will read these essays again; not just food for thought rather a banquet.
December 31, 2022
L’applicazione del primo emendamento è la cartina di tornasole della democrazia liberale. Ma è un’arma a doppio taglio. Innanzitutto, è una prescrizione che si applica esclusivamente alle istituzioni, con particolare riferimento al potere esecutivo e a quello legislativo. Con un obiettivo così specifico, non stupisce che non esistano leggi che impediscano a un americano di bruciare la bandiera USA senza essere denunciato per vilipendio. O che risultino incostituzionali norme statali che puniscono le organizzazioni religiose che festeggiano le esequie di soldati americani morti in guerra. Al di là della sostanziale differenza con i sistemi giuridici europei, che al contrario non hanno in Costituzione l’obbligo di non limitare mai la libertà di parola (la formulazione al negativo è di essenziale rilevanza), il volume mette in evidenza due questioni parallele di enorme sostanza. Il diritto delle grandi imprese di esprimere la propria libertà di parola come fossero delle persone fisiche, allo scopo di permettere che possano finanziare senza limiti le campagne elettorali di candidati graditi: ciò è stato garantito da una discutibilissima e molto criticata sentenza della Corte Suprema. Il diritto della stampa di pubblicare qualsiasi cosa, indipendentemente dalle conseguenze che la pubblicazione può comportare per alcuni individui o per una collettività: il doppio caso Assange-Snowden propone infinite possibilità di dirimere la questione e sono tutte meritevoli di essere scandagliate. Un buon punto di partenza per fruttuose discussioni nel merito, anche al di qua dell'oceano.
November 3, 2021
If you actually include the below two quoted paragraphs In your book on free speech, I'm sorry but I just can't take anything you say seriously. To just ignore slavery, Jim Crow, the trail of tears, Japanese internment... I could go on, and pretend the USA has no horrific events In its last that have free speech implications is either monumentally naive or willfully ignorant. All this book wants to do anyway is justify corporations having free reign to spend as much on politics as they want anyway.
Quote:
"In some nations, limitations on speech arise directly from disturbing, even sickening, events of their past. Holocaust denial is criminal in a number of nations, including Germany. Given Germany’s genocidal history, there is no need to explain why. As Professor Michel Rosenfeld of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has written, “Viewed from the particular perspective of a rejection of the Nazi experience and an attempt to prevent its resurgence, the suppression of hate speech seems both obvious and commendable.”...
It is understandable that some nations have sometimes responded by limiting particularly hateful speech that may have contributed to past tragedies. The United States has been fortunate not to have suffered such horrific events, and I am unwilling to criticize nations that have responded to such calamities by urging them to change their policies. For this nation, though, strict constitutionally imposed limitations on such legislation have served us well."
Quote:
"In some nations, limitations on speech arise directly from disturbing, even sickening, events of their past. Holocaust denial is criminal in a number of nations, including Germany. Given Germany’s genocidal history, there is no need to explain why. As Professor Michel Rosenfeld of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law has written, “Viewed from the particular perspective of a rejection of the Nazi experience and an attempt to prevent its resurgence, the suppression of hate speech seems both obvious and commendable.”...
It is understandable that some nations have sometimes responded by limiting particularly hateful speech that may have contributed to past tragedies. The United States has been fortunate not to have suffered such horrific events, and I am unwilling to criticize nations that have responded to such calamities by urging them to change their policies. For this nation, though, strict constitutionally imposed limitations on such legislation have served us well."
May 31, 2020
Interesting take on our most important Amendment from a recognized expert (and frequent counsel arguing such cases before the Supreme Court).
The bulk of the text details examples of American jurisprudence differing greatly from our Western European counterparts, often harrowingly (to the discredit of the Europeans, in my view). Libel laws, governmental criticism, defamatory statements and strong opinions on certain ethnic groups (not to incite violence, mind you) are limited by a creepy anti-free-speech ethos in much of Europe and Canada.
Abrams strongly defends the Citizen’s United ruling. His unpopular position (viz. it is immaterial if we don’t like what corporations have to say, the government cannot limit their speech) does not answer all challenges. My concern is not that corporations are getting an expensive and influential voice to harm average citizens while serving their own selfish motives. Rather, there is limited bandwidth in our media and for individuals, both literally and figuratively. This ruling would seem to provide so much volume to the speech of some groups that all other voices are effectively drowned out. This concern was not addressed by Abram’s arguments, in my view.
Still, worthwhile.
The bulk of the text details examples of American jurisprudence differing greatly from our Western European counterparts, often harrowingly (to the discredit of the Europeans, in my view). Libel laws, governmental criticism, defamatory statements and strong opinions on certain ethnic groups (not to incite violence, mind you) are limited by a creepy anti-free-speech ethos in much of Europe and Canada.
Abrams strongly defends the Citizen’s United ruling. His unpopular position (viz. it is immaterial if we don’t like what corporations have to say, the government cannot limit their speech) does not answer all challenges. My concern is not that corporations are getting an expensive and influential voice to harm average citizens while serving their own selfish motives. Rather, there is limited bandwidth in our media and for individuals, both literally and figuratively. This ruling would seem to provide so much volume to the speech of some groups that all other voices are effectively drowned out. This concern was not addressed by Abram’s arguments, in my view.
Still, worthwhile.
July 8, 2020
Written by a prominent First Amendment litigator, The Soul of the First Amendment is a great commentary about various aspects of freedom of speech jurisprudence in America. One surprise for me was certainly that until the 1960s, a federal statute had never been held unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. In the early 20th century, newspaper editors were routinely jailed for writing articles. In today's world, thanks to the -in my view- the correct interpretation of the 1st amendment, this would be unthinkable.
The book also highlights the uniquely American aspects of our free speech laws, with perhaps the free-est free speech laws in the world. In Europe and most countries around the world, you can get fined or jailed for "hate speech". Lots of things Donald Trump says now could get him jailed. But not just Trump. Things MLK and Malcolm X said, that enabled the flourishing civil rights movements of the 1960s, would have also been illegal. Slander/libel laws in America are also extremely liberal, especially concerning public persons (certainly government officials) and subjects of public import, allowing the publication of books that in Europe might never get published because the author or the publisher might go bankrupt. The ability for whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden to fundamentally change evil government practices is greatly enabled by the First Amendment protections for the press.
The book also delves into the landmark Citizens United decision reviled by the liberal establishment. Abrams, who litigated on behalf of the victor Citizens United, makes a good case for why that decision was actually principled and ultimately good for speakers of all viewpoints.
If you're interested in free speech and free expression in America, this is a good one.
The book also highlights the uniquely American aspects of our free speech laws, with perhaps the free-est free speech laws in the world. In Europe and most countries around the world, you can get fined or jailed for "hate speech". Lots of things Donald Trump says now could get him jailed. But not just Trump. Things MLK and Malcolm X said, that enabled the flourishing civil rights movements of the 1960s, would have also been illegal. Slander/libel laws in America are also extremely liberal, especially concerning public persons (certainly government officials) and subjects of public import, allowing the publication of books that in Europe might never get published because the author or the publisher might go bankrupt. The ability for whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden to fundamentally change evil government practices is greatly enabled by the First Amendment protections for the press.
The book also delves into the landmark Citizens United decision reviled by the liberal establishment. Abrams, who litigated on behalf of the victor Citizens United, makes a good case for why that decision was actually principled and ultimately good for speakers of all viewpoints.
If you're interested in free speech and free expression in America, this is a good one.
July 5, 2017
Short read about the First Amendment by one of the preeminent First Amendment litigators. I was interested in learning about the arguments by the drafters of the Constitution about whether or not to include a Bill of Rights and, if so, whether they should be written in the positive or negative. I liked learning about the history of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the First Amendment. I was less impressed with the author's attempts to justify his representation of Mitch McConnell in the Citizens United case and found unconvincing his and Justice Alito's (and Justice Scalia's) arguments. I thought that the comparison between the United States and other western democracies was fascinating as well as his ruminations about Edward Snowden and Wikileaks. I would be interested in reading about his thoughts on the current 1st Amendment issues on college campuses as well as how he thinks it applies to online services like Facebook and Twitter.
July 14, 2021
I read this book as a Yale student in a course of freedom of speech and ethics. To say the least, this book stimulated LOTS of thought. As I read, I realized that the freedom of speech can be seen in a lot of different ways, such as political and religious speech, although I concede that there is overlap among those particular types of speech. The freedom of speech, as argued by Abrams, ultimately serves the purpose of restricting government regulation on the marketplace of ideas. He cites legal precedent and quotes many a legal scholar to support his overarching argument that regardless of content, the 1st Amendment works to protect the individual’s (and press’) right to expression. Comparing American law and attitude to European and Canadian standards was an interesting addition that made me realize how broad the protections afforded to Americans by the freedom of speech are. I didn’t agree with everything, but it all made me think. 4/5
November 15, 2023
I read this book because I have had a few discussions with my brothers lately about the extent of the rights protected under the First Amendment. Are there limits to “free speech”? Of course there are. But how do we define those limits? Who gets to decide?
This was a great, short book examining the creation of the first amendment, comparing free speech as understood in the United States of America in contrast to other countries such as Canada, England and the European countries.
Floyd Adams is a great person to write this book as he has been on the front lines, arguing before the Supreme Court on some of the defining cases of our time such as Citizen’s United.
I recommend this book if you want to better understand why this is the most important of the articles of the Bill of Rights and how we can best defend our freedoms while limiting the damage that come from reckless and defamatory speech.
This was a great, short book examining the creation of the first amendment, comparing free speech as understood in the United States of America in contrast to other countries such as Canada, England and the European countries.
Floyd Adams is a great person to write this book as he has been on the front lines, arguing before the Supreme Court on some of the defining cases of our time such as Citizen’s United.
I recommend this book if you want to better understand why this is the most important of the articles of the Bill of Rights and how we can best defend our freedoms while limiting the damage that come from reckless and defamatory speech.
January 19, 2020
Quite a compelling essay explaining the cases upon which the First Amendment was built: how it came to be, how it was originally and intentionally not present in the US Constitution and even argued against until the Bill of Rights was more broadly recognized as necessary and was written in 1789 with particular phrasing (in the negative!); how the Amendment is different than the precedence set by English law, and how it is modernly different in practice; the case that decidedly rejected English law as its fundamental basis and expanded its reach; how the Amendment addresses the right to be forgotten and protection of the unlimited spending by both individuals and corporations in support of their own discretion; and to what extent the Amendment applies to controversial issues such as national security through the idea of Free Speech and Freedom of the Press.
January 11, 2018
This is a book that every student or reader of our Constitution should read. It is a review of the history of the First Amendment as practiced and a comparison of our freedoms of speech and press with those of the United Kingdom and the European Union. For the most part, our government keeps its nose out of what we say and print, while every place else seems to meddle. The "guilty until proven innocent" of the English libel laws towards speakers and publishers and the "ability to forget the truth" privacy concerns of our European allies make me very happy to be a part of the US legal system. I suppose rather than only pointing our fingers at China for restricting social media, we should look more closely at those friends who restrict the speech of their people.
November 10, 2019
A careful reading of American history shows that the vaunted First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution did not receive much attention from American jurisprudence until the second half of the 20th Century. News media is a much different animal now than in earlier American history so now we speak of the First Amendment frequently.
This author is a Constitutional expert and gives a fine synopsis in this short book of the reasons why the First Amendment is so important to the evolution of the American ethos. He contrasts the strict American adherence to freedom of the press and religion with other democracies and also reviews the important current cases such as Citizens United and the controversies concerning hate speech.
A fine primer on the status and value of the First Amendment.
This author is a Constitutional expert and gives a fine synopsis in this short book of the reasons why the First Amendment is so important to the evolution of the American ethos. He contrasts the strict American adherence to freedom of the press and religion with other democracies and also reviews the important current cases such as Citizens United and the controversies concerning hate speech.
A fine primer on the status and value of the First Amendment.
October 9, 2018
This book is a nice little history of what I feel makes America a great nation, the ability to speak ones mind.
This book is short but its packed with great information about the First Amendment. It takes the reader back to events like the Alien and Sedition Act that was passed by Adams to the more recent events that are happening on college campuses. It also talks about victories over censorship and obscure cases that the average person might not to be aware of.
This should be standard reading in all college level government classes.
This book is short but its packed with great information about the First Amendment. It takes the reader back to events like the Alien and Sedition Act that was passed by Adams to the more recent events that are happening on college campuses. It also talks about victories over censorship and obscure cases that the average person might not to be aware of.
This should be standard reading in all college level government classes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews