Review by Choice Review
Bollinger (Michigan, Law) favors tolerance of extremist speech as a new form of social control. He is exercised by the paradox of jurists who condemn the extremist expression they go out of their way to protect with the First Amendment. Illustrating this paradox with the case of Collin v. Smith (Skokie)-the defense by the American Civil Liberties Union of the American Nazi party's application to assemble, give speeches, and carry swastika emblems in the predominantly Jewish suburb of Skokie, Illinois, in 1977-Bollinger assesses the adequacy of conventional reasons for the courts bothering to protect extremely intolerant speech. The author finds one common rationale-that all expression should be allowed because the truth will in the end win-optimistic and close to the hearts of most citizens, but too weak actually to justify protecting extremist speech. Another, less inspirational, rationale is rather pessimistic: because there is no absolute truth, we must keep the government out of the business of regulating our expression. Bollinger finds this rationale strong enough to justify protecting extremist speech, but excessively ``legalistic'' in the sense that it is not deeply rooted in society at large. The author's alternative combines the strengths of the first and second by detecting an ambivalance (an ``internal dialectic of tolerance'') rooted deeply in society. Because it forces citizens to struggle against how right it can feel to be intolerant, protecting extremist speech works as a new form of social control. Recommended for all libraries, although it is most suitable for general readers and undergraduates.-W.S. Corlett Jr., Bates College
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Library Journal Review
Bollinger, in this study of the First Amendment, examines some old chest nuts, such as the social and legal implications of the freedom of speech guarantee; the fragile, frequently tense majority rule-minority rights balance; the wisdom of protecting extremist speech. Anent the last, he offers searching comments on Holmes's views in Abrams and Schenck , the landmark Sullivan case, and the legal controversy surrounding Skokie. His study is filled with provocative observations: e.g., John Milton's (and Holmes's) ``naive and unduly optimistic'' forecast that truth will always prevail over falsehood; the belief that pluralism and diversity have their limits. Continually asking bold, disquieting questions, Ballinger's study is analytic, syncretic, and reaffirmative: legal history at its best. Milton Cantor, History Dept., Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst (c) Copyright 2010. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Choice Review
Review by Library Journal Review
