What do you think?
Rate this book
Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment
The rights guaranteed in the First Amendment—including freedom of expression—are among the fundamental touchstones of our democracy. In Speaking Freely , Floyd Abrams, who for over thirty years has been our most eloquent and respected advocate for uncensored expression, recounts some of the major cases of his remarkable career—landmark trials and Supreme Court arguments that have involved key First Amendment protections.With adversaries as diverse as Richard Nixon and Wayne Newton and allies as unlikely as Kenneth Starr, Abrams takes readers behind the scenes to explain his strategies, the ramifications of each decision, and its long-term significance, presenting a clear and compelling look at the law in action.
352 pages, Paperback
First published April 7, 2005
13 people are currently reading
102 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 - 14 of 14 reviews
November 30, 2021
The United States Constitution is a groundbreaking document. Although written in 1789, it frames our current government and leads us on an uncertain path. Now I am an American, and this book might not apply to everyone reading it, but bear with me, please.
When the Framers of the Constitution (FotC) met, they had several issues to tackle. First off, the government at the time was woefully inadequate and weak. The Articles of Confederation had many problems, the main one being that it could not collect taxes. There were several other reasons, but the taxes stick out in my mind. The FotC wanted to distance itself from that government, but it also had to appease the different states. I won't get too far into US History, but the FotC made many compromises.
The First Amendment reads as follows; "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."
"Speaking Freely" is a memoir on the legal ramifications of the First Amendment. It has a long and storied history of being shoved aside or misappropriated. The author is a lawyer that took part in these cases. The book is from 2005, so I don't know if the author is still alive. I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
When the Framers of the Constitution (FotC) met, they had several issues to tackle. First off, the government at the time was woefully inadequate and weak. The Articles of Confederation had many problems, the main one being that it could not collect taxes. There were several other reasons, but the taxes stick out in my mind. The FotC wanted to distance itself from that government, but it also had to appease the different states. I won't get too far into US History, but the FotC made many compromises.
The First Amendment reads as follows; "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."
"Speaking Freely" is a memoir on the legal ramifications of the First Amendment. It has a long and storied history of being shoved aside or misappropriated. The author is a lawyer that took part in these cases. The book is from 2005, so I don't know if the author is still alive. I enjoyed the book. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
March 20, 2020
This book deals with the First Amendment on the issue of freedom of speech. The author is a lawyer who has argued many cases defending the fight of free speech, including some before the Supreme Court. He defended the New York Times before the Supreme Court in the Pentagon Papers case, defended ABC in a slander suit brought by Wayne Newton for a documentary the network aired about his ties to organized crime and perjury when applying for a gambling permit in Las Vegas.
He traces his journey from at first being skeptical about free speech to an ardent advocate of it. He argued before the Supreme Court against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, as being a violation of free speech.. the purpose of the bill was to curb campaign spending and abuse. In doing so it put severe restrictions on free speech. The case was lost as the Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional.
This was a very interesting book and relevant to today amidst our current climate of “fake news” and attempts to control the flow of news and facts.
He traces his journey from at first being skeptical about free speech to an ardent advocate of it. He argued before the Supreme Court against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, as being a violation of free speech.. the purpose of the bill was to curb campaign spending and abuse. In doing so it put severe restrictions on free speech. The case was lost as the Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional.
This was a very interesting book and relevant to today amidst our current climate of “fake news” and attempts to control the flow of news and facts.
May 11, 2018
This book is an excellent source for anyone who is interested in the first amendment, the court hearings to test it. and the dedication of Floyd Abrams to protect it. Since being asked by The New York Times to defend its right to publish the Pentagon Papers 45 years ago, the 80-year-old partner at the New York law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel has become, as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it, “the most significant First Amendment lawyer of our age.” He has been asked by ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and Time Magazine, among others, to represent them in high stakes constitutional litigation, with clients as diverse as the Brooklyn Museum of Art, National Public Radio commentator Nina Totenberg, Al Franken, Senator Mitch McConnell in Citizens United, Rudy Giuliani when mayor of New York, for attempting to shut down The Brooklyn Museum of Art, and Richard Nixon in the Pentagon papers. Floyd Abrams is a good storyteller who takes the reader behind the scenes to explain strategies and concerns. It is a worthy read.
August 3, 2025
A practiced defender of the First Amendment freedom of speech documents his firsthand experience with the legal bounds of “free speech.” In this succinct psuedo-memoir, Floyd Abrams guides readers through some major 1A litigation cases he argued, offering backstory and observations about tactical choices in argument and the ramifications of the cases. While not excelling in any one respect as a survey of 1A case law, an attorney’s autobiography, or a tell-all of judicial politics and courtroom sparring, the whole piece is a worthwhile read for those curious about the modern legal standing of American freedom of speech.
Abrams was party to a number of cases illustrative of the dynamics of free speech. The chapters of this book are largely dedicated each to one of these cases, save for the last and the first two — the latter of which discusses his most famous case, the defense of The New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. Abrams generally provides relevant historical context to understand the parties and conflict, discusses his legal strategy and the conduct in court, and the verdict rendered. Throughout he splices in discourse on First Amendment ideology.
The court cases populating the book offer a fresh mix of 1A subjects in cases ranging from the history-defining to the bewildering. Of the latter sort includes drug trafficking allegations resulting in bona fide Perry Mason moments and Wayne Newton, of all people. But the courtroom drama never overtakes the challenging 1A discussion. Subjects ranging from prior restraint to libel, money as speech and editorial discretion all get their due. A reader should walk away from this book the wiser as to the nature of modern 1A challenges.
As a prominent First Amendment defender, Abrams writes from the perspective of one with little room for compromise. The book alludes to certain acceptable limits to free speech, such as the direct existential threat to the state elucidated in the Pentagon Papers case. But in other murky areas — particularly the realm of campaign finance reform, this book’s largest chapter — Abrams brooks little argument for the validity of suppressing money-speech.
As this book was written in 2004 and published in 2006, it not only predates the advent of social media, algorithmic echo chambers, and the rise of internet-based junk media subsuming mainstream media that’s enabling the 1A to sow public division — it’s a half decade before the Citizens United decision. While the conservative activist group gets some praise toward the end for its opposition to McCain-Feingold, I am desperately curious to hear Abrams’ thoughts on the state of money in politics a decade after Citizens United. Probably won’t differ much…
This is part of the book’s two biggest flaws. Its limited scope imparts limited utility as a lasting text on 1A legal dynamics. As a far-reaching study of 1A’s development via SCOTUS and society over the 21st century, this is wanting. The defining cases that preceded Abrams’ time as a litigator, like Schenck v. U.S., deserve chapters of their own, not just asides.
The second issue is the questionable approach to negotiating the scope of 1A when balanced against legitimate interests. Abrams’ stalwart defense of 1A is facilitated by the abject unimportance of the objections he outlines via his legal adversaries. From a paranoid, embarrassed president to a dim singer looking to protect his image; an aged McCarthyite picking one last fight, and a loathsome mayor clutching pearls at apparent mockery of religion — all of these challenges are so petty, so pointless, that no principled reader would accept limiting freedom of speech or the press to accommodate. But again, when the issue of monied political speech is introduced, the author struggles to convince the interest is in league with the foolishness of prior chapters.
A paramount example is a case brought up almost offhand: a press freedom challenge against a nuclear advocacy group that sought to gather and publish publicly-available information on constructing nuclear bombs to demonstrate their anti-nuke stance. Abrams elides any discussion of legal merits since the case was rendered moot by a different org publishing a similar piece first, yet he still defends the conduct on the grounds that…it probably wouldn’t have accelerated development much anyway?? This is, at the very least, a wholly uninteresting observation given that one can easily hypothesize a scenario in which the publisher airs a meaningful breakthrough in nuke development instead. At worst, it feels like being talked to by an attorney making a case (no matter how flawed) as opposed to a legal philosopher genuinely exploring the issues.
To be clear, Abrams is obviously more experienced with the First Amendment than this reviewer and he can genuinely harbor differing views as to the validity of campaign finance reform while being a card-carrying liberal. But I would expect substantial discussion as to the weights of the genuine interests that exist in conflict with absolute free speech, and there just isn’t enough of that in here. Therefore, while this work ultimately best exists as a memoir of significant 1A cases tried by a prominent advocate of speech and the press, and as a source of insight to trial practice, it is less compelling as a philosophical discourse on the First Amendment or of its major modern cases.
Abrams was party to a number of cases illustrative of the dynamics of free speech. The chapters of this book are largely dedicated each to one of these cases, save for the last and the first two — the latter of which discusses his most famous case, the defense of The New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. Abrams generally provides relevant historical context to understand the parties and conflict, discusses his legal strategy and the conduct in court, and the verdict rendered. Throughout he splices in discourse on First Amendment ideology.
The court cases populating the book offer a fresh mix of 1A subjects in cases ranging from the history-defining to the bewildering. Of the latter sort includes drug trafficking allegations resulting in bona fide Perry Mason moments and Wayne Newton, of all people. But the courtroom drama never overtakes the challenging 1A discussion. Subjects ranging from prior restraint to libel, money as speech and editorial discretion all get their due. A reader should walk away from this book the wiser as to the nature of modern 1A challenges.
As a prominent First Amendment defender, Abrams writes from the perspective of one with little room for compromise. The book alludes to certain acceptable limits to free speech, such as the direct existential threat to the state elucidated in the Pentagon Papers case. But in other murky areas — particularly the realm of campaign finance reform, this book’s largest chapter — Abrams brooks little argument for the validity of suppressing money-speech.
As this book was written in 2004 and published in 2006, it not only predates the advent of social media, algorithmic echo chambers, and the rise of internet-based junk media subsuming mainstream media that’s enabling the 1A to sow public division — it’s a half decade before the Citizens United decision. While the conservative activist group gets some praise toward the end for its opposition to McCain-Feingold, I am desperately curious to hear Abrams’ thoughts on the state of money in politics a decade after Citizens United. Probably won’t differ much…
This is part of the book’s two biggest flaws. Its limited scope imparts limited utility as a lasting text on 1A legal dynamics. As a far-reaching study of 1A’s development via SCOTUS and society over the 21st century, this is wanting. The defining cases that preceded Abrams’ time as a litigator, like Schenck v. U.S., deserve chapters of their own, not just asides.
The second issue is the questionable approach to negotiating the scope of 1A when balanced against legitimate interests. Abrams’ stalwart defense of 1A is facilitated by the abject unimportance of the objections he outlines via his legal adversaries. From a paranoid, embarrassed president to a dim singer looking to protect his image; an aged McCarthyite picking one last fight, and a loathsome mayor clutching pearls at apparent mockery of religion — all of these challenges are so petty, so pointless, that no principled reader would accept limiting freedom of speech or the press to accommodate. But again, when the issue of monied political speech is introduced, the author struggles to convince the interest is in league with the foolishness of prior chapters.
A paramount example is a case brought up almost offhand: a press freedom challenge against a nuclear advocacy group that sought to gather and publish publicly-available information on constructing nuclear bombs to demonstrate their anti-nuke stance. Abrams elides any discussion of legal merits since the case was rendered moot by a different org publishing a similar piece first, yet he still defends the conduct on the grounds that…it probably wouldn’t have accelerated development much anyway?? This is, at the very least, a wholly uninteresting observation given that one can easily hypothesize a scenario in which the publisher airs a meaningful breakthrough in nuke development instead. At worst, it feels like being talked to by an attorney making a case (no matter how flawed) as opposed to a legal philosopher genuinely exploring the issues.
To be clear, Abrams is obviously more experienced with the First Amendment than this reviewer and he can genuinely harbor differing views as to the validity of campaign finance reform while being a card-carrying liberal. But I would expect substantial discussion as to the weights of the genuine interests that exist in conflict with absolute free speech, and there just isn’t enough of that in here. Therefore, while this work ultimately best exists as a memoir of significant 1A cases tried by a prominent advocate of speech and the press, and as a source of insight to trial practice, it is less compelling as a philosophical discourse on the First Amendment or of its major modern cases.
May 25, 2017
interesting topic but not written in a very interesting way. got a lot better on the last 2 cases covered though.
January 27, 2009
If you're a nerd about freedom of speech and the press, especially since the Nixon era, this book is for you. Floyd Abrams litigated a disproportionate number of the most important first amendment cases to come before the Supreme Court in the last 40 years. He's a stud, to be sure.
He's a competent, if not mind blowing, storyteller. He tries to give even handed accounts of the debates at hand, but largely fails. However, since he's almost always on the right side of my personal beliefs, I let it go. But the book is less an academic exercise than a focused memoir of 6 or 7 of his biggest courtroom accomplishments. The book often comes off a little self-promotional, but he kicked a lot of ass over the course of his career -- and set a lot of precedents that have been very good for the country -- so I guess it's OK to brag a bit.
It's essentially a history book, just told entirely from the perspective of legal briefs, discoveries, and such. The most interesting and important chapters are the first and second -- dealing with the Pentagon Papers case in the early 70's. But by far the most entertaining part comes later in the book when Abrams details his nut-crushing defeat and humiliation of then-Mayor Giuliani in 1999 in the Brooklyn Museum of Art case.
Rudy had tried to -- I kid you not -- shutter and then evict one of the most venerable art institutions in the country...because he didn't like one of the paintings they were showing. The BK museum was, as of 1999, the second largest art institution in the country, and had rented the same building from the city for 106 years. Tyrant Giuliani seriously thought he could close its doors and made a massive national story out of his attempt to do so. Abrams and the museum not only sued to stop the city's actions, they personally sued Giuliani the man for knowingly and maliciously attacking their constitutional rights. After several unanimous and incredulous decisions against the Mayor in federal court, Rudy was eventually forced to sign an out-of-court settlement with Abrams and the museum granting them incredible protections and guarantees. Arguably the museum ended up stronger than before, and Giuliani was legally muzzled. Great stuff.
He's a competent, if not mind blowing, storyteller. He tries to give even handed accounts of the debates at hand, but largely fails. However, since he's almost always on the right side of my personal beliefs, I let it go. But the book is less an academic exercise than a focused memoir of 6 or 7 of his biggest courtroom accomplishments. The book often comes off a little self-promotional, but he kicked a lot of ass over the course of his career -- and set a lot of precedents that have been very good for the country -- so I guess it's OK to brag a bit.
It's essentially a history book, just told entirely from the perspective of legal briefs, discoveries, and such. The most interesting and important chapters are the first and second -- dealing with the Pentagon Papers case in the early 70's. But by far the most entertaining part comes later in the book when Abrams details his nut-crushing defeat and humiliation of then-Mayor Giuliani in 1999 in the Brooklyn Museum of Art case.
Rudy had tried to -- I kid you not -- shutter and then evict one of the most venerable art institutions in the country...because he didn't like one of the paintings they were showing. The BK museum was, as of 1999, the second largest art institution in the country, and had rented the same building from the city for 106 years. Tyrant Giuliani seriously thought he could close its doors and made a massive national story out of his attempt to do so. Abrams and the museum not only sued to stop the city's actions, they personally sued Giuliani the man for knowingly and maliciously attacking their constitutional rights. After several unanimous and incredulous decisions against the Mayor in federal court, Rudy was eventually forced to sign an out-of-court settlement with Abrams and the museum granting them incredible protections and guarantees. Arguably the museum ended up stronger than before, and Giuliani was legally muzzled. Great stuff.
March 13, 2008
An inciteful examination of key modern cases that have shaped First Amendment jurisprudence.
I took a three week break from this book, and at my return, I discovered no way for me to proceed without rereading (skimming) the first sixty pages. Additionally, I imagine the casual reader might not find the same satisfaction at the sweet, nuanced legal triumphs, as others. That being said, it flowed surprisingly well.
The discussion of First Amendment principles significantly broadened my understanding of the topic, from restraints on the press to libel and campaign finance reform. I was also forced to reexamine my position on McCain-Feingold in light of its First Amendment impact.
By way of coincidence, this work complemented my reading of Leadership by Rudy Giuliani, offering a critical examination of the Mayor's First Amendment Record, especially the Brooklyn Museum Case.
A quality read for First Amendment enthusiasts. Esoteric in parts and a little pedantic at the end. 3.75 Stars.
I took a three week break from this book, and at my return, I discovered no way for me to proceed without rereading (skimming) the first sixty pages. Additionally, I imagine the casual reader might not find the same satisfaction at the sweet, nuanced legal triumphs, as others. That being said, it flowed surprisingly well.
The discussion of First Amendment principles significantly broadened my understanding of the topic, from restraints on the press to libel and campaign finance reform. I was also forced to reexamine my position on McCain-Feingold in light of its First Amendment impact.
By way of coincidence, this work complemented my reading of Leadership by Rudy Giuliani, offering a critical examination of the Mayor's First Amendment Record, especially the Brooklyn Museum Case.
A quality read for First Amendment enthusiasts. Esoteric in parts and a little pedantic at the end. 3.75 Stars.
March 8, 2010
This is a brilliant book. I find the part about the Pentagon Papers most compelling. The release of the Pentagon Papers failed to end the war in Vietnam and it did little to reinvigorate the moribund anti-war movement. We are 35 years away from the end of Vietnam, and yet we seem to have learned nothing from the lessons of the Pentagon Papers, or from that war.
What do we have now? JSOC secret prisons. Political assassinations. Wars whose purpose to change the forms of government in other countries. 16 agencies that make up the US so-called intelligence service that can't communicate effectively with each other. Unbounded executive power. And on and on.
What do we have now? JSOC secret prisons. Political assassinations. Wars whose purpose to change the forms of government in other countries. 16 agencies that make up the US so-called intelligence service that can't communicate effectively with each other. Unbounded executive power. And on and on.
July 30, 2013
Interesting behind-the-scenes memoir of a die-hard first amendment defender that is a worthwhile read for anyone who would like to know how some of the most important free speech cases were argued and decided.
August 1, 2007
A very important book that points out the flaws of the system and makes me want to get into law even more.
October 23, 2007
Fascinating!!
April 4, 2008
Great book that describes a few of the trials dealing with the first amendment that the author has been a part of.
September 26, 2007
Totally amazing, but for First Amendment Law junkies only.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews