Reviews

• Geoffrey Stone zeigt die historische Entwicklung der Einschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit in den USA auf. Das Land, welches - seine Version - von Freiheit und Demokratie auch heutzutage teilweise mit militärischen Mitteln in die Welt exportieren will, versagte - und versagt - seinen eigenen Bürgern bis zum heutigen Tag einige elementare Rechte. Stone schildert die Entwicklung über Jahrhunderte bis in die Bush-Ära (2005) neutral und ohne Wertung. Leider hat sich in den letzten 7 Jahren so wenig positives getan, dass dieses betrübliche Buch nichts von seiner Aktualität eingebüsst hat. Da bleibt wenig Hoffnung auf Besserung...

• As recent history attests to, some people act irrationally when under conditions of stress, and frequently do not hesitate to deny others basic human rights or even react violently. This kind of behavior does not occur under normal conditions of life, so the trick is get back into mental equilibrium as soon as possible after the shocks have occurred. The time needed to do this varies considerably between individuals, and the individuals who are having trouble calming themselves put undue burdens on those who do not. Therefore there is usually a considerable amount of tension between these two types of people, and this in fact creates more stress on top of what was experienced by the original shocks. One can see this type of conflict throughout the history of the United States, as the author of this book shows in great detail in this book. Superbly written and full of helpful references and footnotes, the author narrows his discussion to the effects of war, or rumors of war, or invented threats of war, on free speech. When reading the book one is amazed to learn the low degree to which citizens of the United States have placed on the First Amendment, even as early as 1798. The First Amendment was not really thought of as sacrosanct as it is at the present time (outside of the government). This may explain why early on in U.S. history, the populace was quite willing to stifle speech they thought as treasonous or threatening in time of war (or false threats of war). And the stifling of speech was not unique to a particular political party, newspaper, magazine, or pamphlet. Both the left and the right, and in between, took their turns in the suppression of speech at various times in U.S. history. Everything in the book is fascinating, and those readers who are not aware of the events discussed may be shocked that they actually took place in a country that so prides itself on freedom, both in speech and association. The author though is not content to merely report facts. He analyzes the different attitudes about free speech, both in the minds of the citizens, the press, and in the courts. Legal issues in constitutional law are all discussed in great analytical detail, and the author does not hesitate to express his own opinions on how the different cases should have been decided. A book like this definitely stands out against the hype and yellow journalism that so frequently is labeled as objective analysis these days. It is a welcome part of the political and legal literature, and all readers willing to take the time to its study will walk away with a massive amount of information and insight, and be better equipped to grapple with the issues of free speech as even now they are being debated (and suppressed). Cooler heads did prevail throughout the U.S. constitutional history of free speech, as this book proves without question. One can only hope this will continue to be the case.

• ~Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism~ is an erudite constitutional analysis of First Amendment freedoms to speech and assembly. Throughout American history, free speech and freedom of assembly has been adversely affected by rationalized wartime suppressions in the name of security. Justice Robert Jackson in the mid-20th century declared, "It is easy, by giving way to passion, intolerance, and suspicions of wartime, to reduce our liberties to a shadow, often in answer to exaggerated claims of security." Sadly, overzealous wartime suppression of liberty has plagued the United States throughout much of its history. Geoffrey R. Stone has put together a well-written account of American constitutional history from the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the Patriot Act of 2001. His focus is First Amendment Freedoms. In 1798, ostensibly to guard against the threat of a counterpart "French Revolution" spearheaded by imagined American Jacobins from emerging on American soil, Federalist Party officials marshaled the Alien and Sedition Acts as an effective counterpoise. Its constitutionality was clearly suspect. In reality, it was a shameless partisan attempt to prosecute and suppress critics of the Federalist administration. Virginia and Kentucky responded by protest and state interposition through their Resolutions of 1798, which threatened state nullification of unconstitutional acts. With much of the major wars throughout American history from the Civil War of the 1860s to the Great War, World War II, Vietnam, and now the Iraq War, shameless attempts emerged to intimidate, stifle and suppress political dissent. Lincoln was the precedent setter for unconstitutionally suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and found a follower to his dubious doctrines in George W. Bush. During the Great War, resident aliens were deprived of the right to due process prior to deportation. The Cold War paranoia was so absurd that the FBI drew up reports citing the classic 1946 Frank Capra movie like It's A Wonderful Life as being evidence of subversive communist propaganda. And thus began the McCarthy era. The 1970s felt the tragedy of the Kent State Massacre in Ohio as National Guard troops shot and killed students protesting the war in Vietnam. In the 1970s, ostensibly the FBI and CIA were reigned in on by Congress for running astray in anti-war activities, but those restrictions came loose following 9/11 when somehow unbridled federal power became more trustworthy. James Madison judiciously reminds us: "The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences of the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle." It was to secure against suppression of freedom of conscience that the First Amendment was framed. It was flatly a negative against Congress to legislate on such matters, hence the interpretative keystone, "Congress shall make no law..."

• In most college courses, you are given a textbook which is written in the typical format that is very bland and never exciting. This book summarizes those textbooks in a wonderfully written way. It is almost as if you are reading a novel. For teachers - I highly recommend this book! It was my favorite all semester because it was exciting and easy to follow. If you are not the best history buff, like myself, Mr. Stone summarizes very briefly in an easy to comprehend way what background knowledge is important to understand or be thinking of before he dives into the speech during wartime. Highly recommend. 4 stars. Great read for a college course where we get tired of the same boring monotone monologues of the typical wartime stories.

• the book is, of course, on the topic of article 1 free speech during perilous times. the author provides the reader with an exhaustive review of the literature, extensive end notes, detailed history of six conflicts that resulted in legal conflicts surrounding free speech. the author details executive orders, congressional legislation or mandates, and reviews by the courts and supreme court in efforts to execute the functioning of the government while imposing limitations on free speech. i found no flaws in logic, no errors of grammar. i found two instances in which factual details were not consistent when represented. i was disappointed that the author had not written more on the founding father's beliefs regarding the 1st article. i was disappointed that he hadn't provided historical background regarding the formation of the first article. a history of how other democracies with free speech have dealt with such challenges might have been interesting. a history of how our own democracy has dealt with free speech in non-war time crises might have been interesting. not all wars (e.g., Mexican and free speech by Lincoln, Spanish-American and free speech by Randolf Hearst ...) were covered. i wish that the author had spent more than a dozen pages discussing the current wars in afghanistan and iraq and the challenges they have imposed on free speech AS WELL AS differences in how the usa has handled those challenges versus other countries. given the importance of context in each conflict, i might have been interested in seeing how great britain and the confederate states dealt with free speech during the civil war and how germany dealt with free speech in ww1 and ww2 ... this is an outstanding book, well worth the read and purchase, new or maybe even more. great work!

Purchase links