What do you think?
Rate this book
Minnesota Rag: The Dramatic Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Case That Gave New Meaning to Freedom of the Press
In 1927 the publisher Jay M. Near - whose muck-raking newspaper The Saturday Press indulged his anti-Semitic, anti-black, anti-Catholic and anti-labor prejudices - was put out of business by a Minnesota gag law.
This law allowed a single judge to bar publication of any newspaper found to be "malicious, scandalous or defamatory," set a dangerous precedent for prior restraint of publication, and curtailed freedom of the press. Near's case was eventually taken up by Colonel McCormick, the powerful publisher of the Chicago Tribune, who paid for the appeal to the Supreme Court. In 1931 Near v. Minnesota was decided 5 to 4 in Near's favor - a decision that bears directly on freedom of the press today.
"Ranging from the sleaze of the Minnesota underworld to the often bitchy byplay among members of the Supreme DcCourt, [Friendly] has done a marvelous job." - The Los Angeles Times Book Review
This law allowed a single judge to bar publication of any newspaper found to be "malicious, scandalous or defamatory," set a dangerous precedent for prior restraint of publication, and curtailed freedom of the press. Near's case was eventually taken up by Colonel McCormick, the powerful publisher of the Chicago Tribune, who paid for the appeal to the Supreme Court. In 1931 Near v. Minnesota was decided 5 to 4 in Near's favor - a decision that bears directly on freedom of the press today.
"Ranging from the sleaze of the Minnesota underworld to the often bitchy byplay among members of the Supreme DcCourt, [Friendly] has done a marvelous job." - The Los Angeles Times Book Review
255 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1981
8 people are currently reading
115 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
May 12, 2015
In the tradition of great books about great Supreme Court cases, this book doesn't crack the top 10. The blurbs make the inevitable comparisons to Anthony Lewis's "Gideon's Trumpet" and Richard Kluger's "Simple Justice," but the author here doesn't have the same innate feel for the law and the court that makes Lewis, Kluger and others able to convey both the importance and the drama at the heart of abstruse battles. Instead, this book has too-long disquisitions on the history of the Minnesota Iron Range, on the deceased scandal-sheets of Minneapolis, and on the prosecuting attorneys of Hennepin County. All of this is not to say that the book is without merit, only that in its not quite 180 pages there were many missed opportunities.
The book centers around the case of Near v. Minnesota, which, by a 5-4 vote in 1931, confirmed that prior restraint of the press (called "previous restraint" as far back as Blackstone in the 18th century) was unconstitutional, even if performed by the states. The case itself dealt with an anti-Semitic rag called the Saturday Press in Minneapolis, which was banned from publication by a truly terrible Minnesota law that allowed a single judge, without a jury, to issue an injunction against any paper he felt was "malicious, scandalous, or defamatory." Despite the Saturday Press's innumerable insults and mistakes, it was most likely closed down for the one undoubted public service it performed, attacking the local police chief and his ties to organized crime in the city. It even came to the defence of a Jewish dry cleaner, Sam Shapiro, who refused to submit to a dry-cleaning racket, and who had much of his shop destroyed with sulfuric acid in broad daylight.
The case had many such ironies. The paper's foremost defender on the court was the Jewish Louis Brandeis, who had long established his free speech bona fides and was excited to have the court do the same here, despite the paper's reputation. The paper's most vociferous opponent on the court, and the one who wrote the four judge dissent, was Pierce Butler, whose family had long been attacked by Minnesota scandal-sheets such as the Saturday Press and was exceedingly eager to close this one down. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who was just appointed to the court by Herbert Hoover as a proposed conservative counterweight to Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, became instead a periodic liberal savior, including here where he wrote the majority opinion striking down the law. His appointment, along with that of Owen Roberts, shortly before the case was argued, determined the final decision: if it had been argued the previous year with the two previous justices, the paper would have lost. The case itself was funded by the arch-conservative publisher of the Chicago Tribune, Colonel Robert "Bertie" McCormick, who thus received the praise of the ACLU and other liberals for his work (though he helped muscle out the ACLU early in the case when he worried it had insufficient funds).
As mentioned, the author seems to have a sketchy grasp on the law behind the case, and so I learned a lot after finishing the book just by reading the appendix with the actual Supreme Court decision. Also, the author barely mentions that two weeks before the Near case was decided, the court by a vote of 7-2, in Stromberg v. California, struck down another state law that inhibited freedom of the press. The author is also reluctant to engage in how exactly an injunction differs from a regular civil suit, and how the Minnesota law intersected with libel law, which still inhibited the press after the decision. Thankfully, this is a short book, so even with these problems the reader won't have to slog through much to learn a few worthwhile things about 1920s America, the court, and the freedom of the press.
The book centers around the case of Near v. Minnesota, which, by a 5-4 vote in 1931, confirmed that prior restraint of the press (called "previous restraint" as far back as Blackstone in the 18th century) was unconstitutional, even if performed by the states. The case itself dealt with an anti-Semitic rag called the Saturday Press in Minneapolis, which was banned from publication by a truly terrible Minnesota law that allowed a single judge, without a jury, to issue an injunction against any paper he felt was "malicious, scandalous, or defamatory." Despite the Saturday Press's innumerable insults and mistakes, it was most likely closed down for the one undoubted public service it performed, attacking the local police chief and his ties to organized crime in the city. It even came to the defence of a Jewish dry cleaner, Sam Shapiro, who refused to submit to a dry-cleaning racket, and who had much of his shop destroyed with sulfuric acid in broad daylight.
The case had many such ironies. The paper's foremost defender on the court was the Jewish Louis Brandeis, who had long established his free speech bona fides and was excited to have the court do the same here, despite the paper's reputation. The paper's most vociferous opponent on the court, and the one who wrote the four judge dissent, was Pierce Butler, whose family had long been attacked by Minnesota scandal-sheets such as the Saturday Press and was exceedingly eager to close this one down. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who was just appointed to the court by Herbert Hoover as a proposed conservative counterweight to Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, became instead a periodic liberal savior, including here where he wrote the majority opinion striking down the law. His appointment, along with that of Owen Roberts, shortly before the case was argued, determined the final decision: if it had been argued the previous year with the two previous justices, the paper would have lost. The case itself was funded by the arch-conservative publisher of the Chicago Tribune, Colonel Robert "Bertie" McCormick, who thus received the praise of the ACLU and other liberals for his work (though he helped muscle out the ACLU early in the case when he worried it had insufficient funds).
As mentioned, the author seems to have a sketchy grasp on the law behind the case, and so I learned a lot after finishing the book just by reading the appendix with the actual Supreme Court decision. Also, the author barely mentions that two weeks before the Near case was decided, the court by a vote of 7-2, in Stromberg v. California, struck down another state law that inhibited freedom of the press. The author is also reluctant to engage in how exactly an injunction differs from a regular civil suit, and how the Minnesota law intersected with libel law, which still inhibited the press after the decision. Thankfully, this is a short book, so even with these problems the reader won't have to slog through much to learn a few worthwhile things about 1920s America, the court, and the freedom of the press.
December 22, 2020
It’s a really dense book. I am out of practice reading media law though. It’s a very niche book and goes more in depth about the background and events leading up to the case than anything else. Can be hard to keep straight
August 13, 2021
Favorite quote: "Every person does have a constitutional right to publish malicious, scandalous and defamatory matter, though untrue and with bad motives, and for unjustifiable ends." - Weymouth Kirkland.
Solid, entertaining book on 1st amendment protections against prior restraint.
Solid, entertaining book on 1st amendment protections against prior restraint.
February 25, 2017
As the subtitle says, the book centers on the Near v. Minnesota case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1931. The author does a decent job of drawing the line to the case by the selling of "daily sheets" in Minnesota that often contained scandalous assertions regarding public officials that led to the passage of their Public Nuisance Law. The Law worked as a "prior restraint" on publication, and thus this case decided that such prior restraints violated the First Amendment.
Its a quick read, and its informative, but I wonder if some readers will be left feeling short changed. As a lawyer who occasionally deals with constitutional issues and has a particularly curiosity with the Supreme Court, I thought the book could have done a better job explaining the process of the justices voting in conference and the selection of who writes the majority (and dissenting opinions), and how attempting to maintain that majority can often change opinions throughout the process. Also, I felt more explanation could have been given to the background in Minnesota. The rough and tumble nature of local politics would have been interesting to know more about.
In any event, the book provides a good summary of a historic case (though not one as well known as some).
Its a quick read, and its informative, but I wonder if some readers will be left feeling short changed. As a lawyer who occasionally deals with constitutional issues and has a particularly curiosity with the Supreme Court, I thought the book could have done a better job explaining the process of the justices voting in conference and the selection of who writes the majority (and dissenting opinions), and how attempting to maintain that majority can often change opinions throughout the process. Also, I felt more explanation could have been given to the background in Minnesota. The rough and tumble nature of local politics would have been interesting to know more about.
In any event, the book provides a good summary of a historic case (though not one as well known as some).
December 1, 2009
I wasn't sure where I picked up this book, though it seemed to me that it was at a Tulane book fair. (This conclusion was reinforced when, halfway through the book, I discovered a "thank you" note penned in 1985, returning the book to its original owner after what must have been a long period during which a student had kept it to use its bibliography for research purposes. I love when there is a story within the story, so to speak.)
Fred Friendly's treatment of a complex constitutional question is admirable. The nuances of the law, and especially constitutional issues brought to the Supreme Court under the First Amendment, can often be difficult to penetrate for those of us who do not possess the highly technical knowledge inherent to the rarefied practice in Big Court. That said, Friendly approached the question of prior restraint by applying not only biographical information relating to the characters along the way (including the peculiar behavior of some of the Justices), but he also relied upon anecdotal material to give shape to the broader social context in which this question was being determined. And like so much of social context, it was ultimately political. (Where there's power, there's politics.) A thoroughly enjoyable read.
Fred Friendly's treatment of a complex constitutional question is admirable. The nuances of the law, and especially constitutional issues brought to the Supreme Court under the First Amendment, can often be difficult to penetrate for those of us who do not possess the highly technical knowledge inherent to the rarefied practice in Big Court. That said, Friendly approached the question of prior restraint by applying not only biographical information relating to the characters along the way (including the peculiar behavior of some of the Justices), but he also relied upon anecdotal material to give shape to the broader social context in which this question was being determined. And like so much of social context, it was ultimately political. (Where there's power, there's politics.) A thoroughly enjoyable read.
August 28, 2012
Slow going while the author needs to document the local case in
Minnesota that led eventually to the Supreme Court and an important
decision in favor of freedom of the press. Really interesting
details about the interplay between the Supreme Court and the
political scene and the "press lords" of the time, especially
McCormick of the Chicago Tribune. Lots of strange bedfellows along
the way for all sides in the arguments during the seven years of the
drama (1924-1931). Final good decision hinged on the death of a
couple of the justices along the way and the presence of Charles
Evans Hughes as Chief Justice when the case finally ended. Makes
you think pretty specific thoughts about our current and near-future
Supreme Court, freedom and justice for all, and all that.
Minnesota that led eventually to the Supreme Court and an important
decision in favor of freedom of the press. Really interesting
details about the interplay between the Supreme Court and the
political scene and the "press lords" of the time, especially
McCormick of the Chicago Tribune. Lots of strange bedfellows along
the way for all sides in the arguments during the seven years of the
drama (1924-1931). Final good decision hinged on the death of a
couple of the justices along the way and the presence of Charles
Evans Hughes as Chief Justice when the case finally ended. Makes
you think pretty specific thoughts about our current and near-future
Supreme Court, freedom and justice for all, and all that.
July 17, 2014
This book is about the case that limited a lot how state judges can stop newspaper publications. For non-lawyer readers, I think this book is quite well done. Friendly found quite a few treasures in the background leading to "Near."
But, for lawyers, specially legal scholars, this book does not advance the literature of the doctrine of prior restraint.
But, for lawyers, specially legal scholars, this book does not advance the literature of the doctrine of prior restraint.
August 6, 2011
Really interesting story about Freedom of the Press and how the Supreme Court ruled on it and how the 14th Amendment is involved. It took me a a little while to get through in the beginning, but once the case started going, I was hooked. Sometimes real life is just as interesting as fiction.
May 25, 2016
"...great law emerged from those noxious scandal sheets." Excellent writing concerning a vital topic - freedom of the press in the US.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews