Review by Choice Review
Stone (Univ. of Chicago) focuses on threats to free speech during six wartime periods--the Civil War, the two world wars, and the Vietnam War, plus the 1798-1800 Alien and Sedition Acts episode and the Cold War, both more accurately described as foreign policy crises. Although his claim that the government has restricted speech "only" during these six periods is a huge, absurd blunder often contradicted within the book, Stone has ploughed through large numbers of books, congressional and judicial documents, and contemporary newspaper accounts (but far fewer scholarly articles or archival materials) to construct an eminently readable account. While often focusing on colorful individual stories to the detriment of the broader picture, Stone's primary and clearly correct argument is that during foreign policy crises such as 9/11, US civil liberties have been repeatedly violated, often in deliberatively manipulative ways that leave the country with considerable regret in the morning. The book is a good, useful read, but its audience is unclear: the length will put off generalists and deter classroom use, and civil liberties specialists will be well familiar with its main outlines (although less so with much of the color). ^BSumming Up: Recommended. All levels/libraries. R. J. Goldstein Oakland University
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Booklist Review
With growing concerns about national security and free speech as the nation reacts to terrorist threats, this book is particularly timely. With an engaging mixture of history and law, Stone, a law professor, identifies six periods when U.S. government has curtailed free-speech rights: on the verge of war with France, when Congress enacted the Sedition Act of 1789; during the Civil War, when the writ of habeas corpus was suspended; during World War I, when the government prosecuted opponents of the war and the draft; during World War II, when Japanese were interned; during the cold war and the virulent campaigns against Communists; and in the 1960s and 1970s, when the government sought to suppress civil disobedience and demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Stone devotes a section of the book to each period, highlighting the actions of presidents from John Adams to Richard Nixon; Supreme Court justices; and dissenters, including Emma Goldman, Lillian Hellman, and Daniel Ellsberg. Stone cautions that we as a nation have an unfortunate history of overreacting to the perceived dangers of wartime. --Vernon Ford Copyright 2004 Booklist
From Booklist, Copyright (c) American Library Association. Used with permission.
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
As readers would hope from a book about free speech, this one is filled with glorious insults-the first man charged under the Sedition Act accused John Adams's administration of "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp... and selfish avarice"-and lucid accounts of the speech that the U.S. government has tried to quiet throughout our history. A law professor at the University of Chicago, Stone delivers rich material in an engaging, character-based narrative. Stone offers deep insight into rhetorical history and the men and women who made it-resisters like Clement Vallandingham, Emma Goldman, Fred Korematsu and Daniel Ellsberg; presidents faced with wartime dilemmas; and the prosecutors, defenders and Supreme Court justices who shaped our understanding of the First Amendment today. His treatment of the war on terror is brief, and his assessment of the Bush administration is judicious but harsh for what he casts as its obsession with secrecy and its effective dismantling of the 1976 Levi guidelines restricting the FBI's ability to investigate political and religious activities. Stone places heavy responsibility on-and gives ample credit to-the American public for upholding free speech even when our leaders tend toward measures that weaken liberty in the name of strengthening it. Comprehensive and consistently readable, this enlightening book arrives at a time when national political debate should be at a fever pitch. 63 illus. Agent, Lynn Chu. (Oct. 25) (c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Kirkus Book Review
It's one thing to cry "fire" in a crowded theater. It's another to cry "surrender" in the face of an enemy, as this broadly ranging survey of historical laws attests. There are many good reasons for suppressing certain speech in wartime, writes Stone (Law/Univ. of Chicago): for instance, "a dissenter may disclose information that is useful to the enemy, such as invasion plans or the vulnerabilities of the navy"; "antiwar dissent may strengthen the enemy's resolve and make it more difficult for the nation to achieve victory or negotiate a just peace"; or, provocatively, "dissent may persuade people to vote for political candidates who promise to end the war." Yet laws regulating the expression of such sentiments in wartime--which takes up about 20 percent of our nation's history, he reckons--tend to be made by Congress in a mood of war fever, with predictable results: "The fear, anger, and fervent patriotism engendered during a war naturally undermine the capacity of individuals and institutions to make clearheaded judgments about risk, fairness, and danger." Thus, he notes, the so-called Patriot Act, which "smuggled into law several investigative practices that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, but that law enforcement officials had for years tried unsuccessfully to persuade Congress to authorize." Alas, Stone shows, Congress is all too easily persuaded to abandon American principles for political expediency: "Most often, Congress has responded to public fears in wartime with draconian and even savage legislation." Thus the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, the promulgation of the Sedition Act after the Revolution, the rise of the HUAC during the Cold War, and the deployment of various secret-police agencies during the Vietnam era. In this long, literate study, Stone addresses six major episodes that have gnawed away at the First Amendment, closing with an examination of our fear-ridden age and its erosive propensities. Most timely, and of wide interest to civil libertarians and students of legal history. Copyright ©Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
Review by Booklist Review
Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Review by Kirkus Book Review
