Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment

by Anthony Lewis

The First Amendment puts it this "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." Yet, in 1960, a city official in Montgomery, Alabama, sued The New York Times for libel -- and was awarded $500,000 by a local jury -- because the paper had published an ad critical of Montgomery's brutal response to civil rights protests. The centuries of legal precedent behind the Sullivan case and the U.S. Supreme Court's historic reversal of the original verdict are expertly chronicled in this gripping and wonderfully readable book by the Pulitzer Prize -- winning legal journalist Anthony Lewis. It is our best account yet of a case that redefined what newspapers -- and ordinary citizens -- can print or say.


From the Trade Paperback edition.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction, History, Politics, Journalism, American History, College

354 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1991

About the author

Anthony Lewis was an American intellectual and columnist for the New York Times.

Reviews

[Grace · Rating 4 out of 5]

Local girl finishes law school, reads legal history book for fun.

[Bob H · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was one reason why I took up the study of law at 50. Anthony Lewis begins with a Supreme Court case and ends up reviewing this country's long experience of free speech controversy. The premise is simple enough: Sullivan v. New York Times, which started as a 1960 civil rights case, involving a defamation lawsuit in Alabama, and ending up as a pivotal Supreme Court ruling on freedom of speech and of the press. The legal importance of the case alone justifies Mr. Lewis' interest.

However, Mr. Lewis' real contribution, at least to me, are in the background chapters to the case, in which he goes back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and tells of the ongoing tension between free speech and official power. His discussion of WWI wartime legislation and its aftermath -- a period very much like the post-9/11 era in its attempts to legislate security -- is central to the book.
It is here that he acquaints us with the dissents by Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissents in freedom-of-speech cases that didn't prevail in that time but burn brightly ever since. One Brandeis quote suffices: "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men ... no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present."

Mr. Lewis rightly regards these jurists with awe. Certainly their words are as noble as anything the Founding Fathers wrote on the nature of our liberties. If patriotism means an appreciation of the depth, timelessness and principle of our liberties, then you'll find much of that here.

I have read Anthony Lewis' earlier, arguably more famous book, Gideon's Trumpet, another work of homage to our legal system, and would still put Make No Law ahead of it, though I also recommend Gideon's Trumpet as well. But this book did reinforce my own appreciation for this country's liberties and I cannot recommend it more highly.

[Bree · Rating 4 out of 5]

Shows just why con law is so sexy.

[Sophia Nocera · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.0 stars. Wowww it took me forever to read this and I am happy to finally be done.

This gave a lot of good historical context for Sullivan and for the historical precedent of the first amendment, but I will say the history bits dragged on a lot. It focused on bigger ideas like the goals of the sedition act and public/court response without specifics. Like really lingered on that dry history stuff. The most boring part was also the lengthy legal analysis on cases after Sullivan (to me). It read as like a pure history book; no real strong opinions or hot takes. Until the end, then randomly asserting a dislike for court precedent on prior restraints for CIA officials/issues of national security. This was a quick hot take.

The long and repeated one was how libel cases are still in a way acting as restraints on the press, without really considering why that may be warranted. I guess that’s the hot take in the beginning bits on Sullivan; how it’s unequivocally correct in protecting the first amendment as opposed to privacy.

Anyways…I liked when a point was illustrated with cases the most, but I feel like the last “envoi” with the more contemporary 1A issues wasn’t fixated on enough.

I learned a lot though, which is the goal overall

[faith bochert · Rating 3 out of 5]

i thought this was going to be a story about evolving civil rights laws but turned out to be the history of american libel law. not bad but went long and i kinda wished it was more about the sullivan case

[erin · Rating 3 out of 5]

just a bit of light reading

[Maddie Schumacher]

investigating journalism 2023 - fuck no

[Clyde Yang · Rating 5 out of 5]

the author has started the breath-taking journey from a landmark case and given the readers a glimpse to the brief history about the struggle of press freedom in the US. This book is about laws and judges, about press freedom and journalism, it is also about race and discrimination and it is ultimately about basic rights and what consititutes an egalitarian and liberal society. there are a lots of different perspectives depicted and clashes of school of thoughts well presented to the readers. defintely worth a 5-star.

[Sarah Sutton · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging account of the case of the NY Times Company vs Sullivan, a case of civil libel filed in 1960 by Montgomery Police Commissioner Sullivan against the New York Times for printing a paid advertisement entitled "Heed Their Rising Voices," an article which, he claimed, libeled him personally.

The content of the article itself was a solicitation for donations to the defense fund of Dr Martin Luther King who was currently incarcerated under charges of tax fraud (the unfounded charges were later reversed). The text of the article, however, included an outraged description of heinous crimes against African Americans which had been carried out in Alabama, specifically in Montgomery often under police endorsement.

Make No Law, describes the evolution of the case, as well as a concise but thorough history of the civil rights movement during that time. In the middle of the narration of the case, Lewis makes an artistic albeit somewhat abrupt historic flashback-style account of the judicial evolution of First Amendment as it pertains to freedom of speech and issues of libel ranging from the birth of the Constitution through the time of the Sullivan case. He then fast-forwards to the 1960s and continues to narrate the case's journey up to the supreme court and the eventual outcome (no spoilers here!).

Also included in the book are a copy of the "Heed their Rising Voices" advertisement and two appendices containing the final text of the Supreme Court Opinion on the case as well as the original draft.

Lewis does an excellent job interweaving the narration with appropriate excerpts from Supreme Court Opinions and other legal documents as well as personal notes and letters all of which, though entrenched in period language and legalese, are remarkably easy to follow.

Essentially what you have is a historical account of the evolution of the First Amendment as it relates to the freedom of the press and especially concerning cases of libel which is surprisingly, given the nature of the topic, both exciting and relatively easy to follow.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very readable discussion of the landmark US Supreme Court decision of New York Times v. Sullivan, which dealt with the intersection between traditional libel law and the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The book traces the issues back to colonial days, supplies insider views of the processes of writing the briefs and of the court's opinions in the New York Times case, and shows how the law has evolved since that time. The book's discussion is sophisticated enough to be appreciated by a lawyer, but clear enough to be understood by one with no prior knowledge of the decisional law and constitutional principles. The book is a breath of fresh air in our current sordid political times, reminding us that there are actually important fundamental principles and rules that protect all of our freedoms. Everyone should read this. It shows why we are different from other countries that lack our constitutional guarantees.

[Daxton Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is probably why I went to law school, as well as why I returned to a career in journalism. Wonderful narrative of how free speech emerged as an important value over time in the US. I met Anthony Lewis & got a signed copy. Because I'm a nerd.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Anthony Lewis, author of book length treatments of topical interest here writes a surprisingly relevant account of the seminal First Amendment case New York Times v. Sullivan. He gives us a perspective of what libel law was like before the 1964 Sullivan decision. The overlap of constitutional restriction embodied in the First Amendment and civil suits between private parties has since reached beyond public officials to "matters of general concern" thus giving appellate courts a tool to limit libel plaintiffs and juries who are often sympathetic to them. Mr. Lewis is able to take a published decision of the Supreme Court and give the story behind it, which I found enormously interesting and relevant to current evolving issues. Published in 1991, the story is relevant to why we are who we are and how we got to this place in history.

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not just for a journalist, but also for anyone who wants to understand the current state of free speech, a grasp of this all-important Supreme Court case, this is a great place to start. Although it was written several decades ago (and NY Times v. Sullivan is newly in the limelight), Lewis writes a definitive history of how the case came to be in a critical time of the movement for civil rights, and how momentous the high court's ruling came to be. There's also a quite interesting almost-epilogue in which he explores how the law around it expanded and ironically, given that the libel case at the core of the case was thrown out by the court, how libel cases exploded in the decades afterward. A smart place to start to get to the bottom of this important legal and social milestone.

[The Atlantic]

“Anthony Lewis’s Make No Law is a book about a specific First Amendment case, New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan, but it’s also a compulsively readable account of how the country has viewed dangerous and unsettling ideas over our history. The way it telescopes into the minute details of the case and out to hundreds of years of history while also reading, at times, like a thriller is, for me, the archetype of great, engrossing journalism.” — Alvin Melathe, producer, "The Experiment"
https://www.theatlantic.com/books/arc...

[Nicktimebreak · Rating 5 out of 5]

本书中译本虽名为批判官员的尺度，但实际上探讨的是美国宪法第一修正案有关言论自由在美国司法历程上的发展。第一修正案虽于1791 年并入宪法，但一百多年来，完全处���休眠状态。第一次世界大战期间，压制言论自由现象严重。之后四十年间，最高法院才逐步适用言论、出版自由条款，保护某些异见或非主流言论。1964年想纽约时报诉沙利文案后，最高法院开始彻底践行第一修正案的承诺：在美国，「不得立法侵犯……言论自由或出版自由。」

读本书之前，我对沙利文案也早有耳闻，其判断媒体诽谤成立的「确有恶意」的准则也是如雷贯耳，但读过此书才会对此案之前的诽谤案历史以及该案判决后媒体的境遇有更全面的了解。作者更是通过一个个法律故事，逸闻趣事将言论自由发展的历史脉络串联，用通俗易懂语言娓娓道来。

虽然我并非法律专业爱好者，但因言论自由的兴趣也前后读过《表达自由的法律限度》、《言论的边界》、《美国宪政历程》等书，最令我印象深刻的是美国宪法的生命力，它之所以能恒久延续，源自法官们在适用与解释上的不断创新，以适应制宪先贤们未能预测到的社会变迁，使之真正成为一部「活着的宪法」（the living constitution）。期待麦迪逊式里理想也能照进这片土地。

[violet wexler · Rating 3 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️⭐️ (3.5 if I could!)

Had to read this whole book in one day for my politics class which was a loooot but still very interesting and the author does a good job with really telling a story out of legal cases that could otherwise be boring! My only complaint was that he would explain a lot of cases very briefly just to support the narrative but they didn’t feel necessary and he could have just stuck with the landmark cases needed. But otherwise a very good book and a very interesting topic to explore - discussing the first amendment and its implications!!

[Yuki Kudo · Rating 5 out of 5]

The floor of one place is the ceiling of another.
In the 1960s, that country debated the civil rights of free speech; now, it’s a country where citizens are criminalized for their speech
The experience of this book review is the epitome of freedom of speech in China. On Douban, book reviews are deleted ten minutes after they are posted. In Xiaohongshu, book reviews indirectly lead to account bans.

[Maya O’Leary-Cyr · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such an important read in regards to the First Amendment. Extremely well written, and in a way that any non-lawyer would be able to understand the importance and implications of the NYT v. Sullivan case. It gave me a better understanding of the process that the Supreme Court Justices go through when deciding a case, and learning the differing opinions of each was insightful.

[Tobe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great reading if you are interested in freedom of speech under the 1st amendment, but of course a bit dated now since it came out in 1992. Most interesting parts are in the first two-thirds of the book where the author really focuses on the history and dynamics of the Sullivan case itself.

[Douglas · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well-written, clear, going back to cover the history of libel law from the beginning of American history, Lewis does a good job with this story, and this particular case and the repercussions that stem from it.

[Xiaofei · Rating 5 out of 5]

以媒体批评官员的一起诉讼案，串联介绍了美国最高法院的运作机制、言论自由的价值及其证明、言论自由和名誉权之间的两难困境、美国宪法第一修正案和诽谤法的渊源与发展、英美法系的利弊等。作者作为一名报社记者不仅仅站在媒体立场上讨论言论自由，还反思探讨了言论自由被滥用的后果，令人钦佩。除此以外，译者作为中国最高法院的法官，为本篇写了十分有力的译者序《批评的限度就是民主的尺度》，针对言论自由在我国法律情境下的应用提出了很多具有力量的提问。

[Kat McKay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very informative study of the case that shaped current libel and First Amendment case law.

[B & A & F · Rating 4 out of 5]

Almost an exhaustive account of the first amendment from its origin to today's situation, in a reader-friendly, and non-technical way.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting book. I couldn’t put it down! Highly recommend read for those interested in Supreme Court “happenings.”

[Gwen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Readable history, good explanation of the issues at stake in the Supreme Court decision.

[Amanda Powell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read it for class, but actually (mostly) enjoyed this!

[Seth · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[M · Rating 5 out of 5]

classic

[Jasmine]

批评官员的尺度 我们应该明白公权力是为人民服务的 不该滥用

[Summer Maxwell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read this for class but had to read the whole book so I’m counting it. As far as academic books go, not bad! Compelling understanding of the case