Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"

Last updated

Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"
Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege".jpg
Book cover
AuthorMichael Kent Curtis
LanguageEnglish
Subject Freedom of Speech
Genre Law
Publisher Duke University Press
Publication date
2000
Publication placeUnited States
Pages520
ISBN 0-8223-2529-2
Preceded byNo State Shall Abridge 

Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege": Struggles for Freedom of Expression in American History is a non-fiction book about the history of freedom of speech in the United States, written by Michael Kent Curtis and published in 2000 by Duke University Press. The book discusses the evolution of free speech in the U.S. within the context of actions of individuals and how they affected change. The author writes that protests and actions by citizens helped to evolve the notions surrounding free speech in the U.S. before definitive statements on the matter from U.S. courts. Curtis writes that free speech rights were first developed in "the forum of public opinion," [1] and that, "The history of free speech shows the need for broadly protective free speech rules applied generally and equally." [2]

Contents

For his work on Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege," Curtis received the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award and the Mayflower Cup Award. Critics gave the book a positive reception. A review in Columbia Journalism Review called it a "rich and original study," [1] and The Journal of American History said that it includes "fine analytic discussions." [3] Perspectives on Political Science called the book "an extremely valuable contribution to the literature addressing the history of free speech in America." [4] Timothy C. Shiell of the University of Wisconsin–Stout reviewed it for The Historian and wrote, "Michael Kent Curtis offers a major contribution to the scholarship of both that era and of free speech." [2]

Author

Curtis' previous book, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights , was published in 1986. [3] [5] The Journal of Information Ethics said that before the book's publication, Curtis had "written quite extensively on the subject" of freedom of speech, [6] and cited articles in Constitutional Commentary (1995), [7] and Wake Forest Law Review (1996). [8] With J. Wilson Parker, Davison Douglas, and Paul Finkelman, Curtis served as editor of the 2003 work, Constitutional Law in Context . [5] In 2002, Curtis was a professor of law at Wake Forest University, where he taught American legal and constitutional history, free speech law, and constitutional law. [9] In 2004, Curtis was a professor of Public and Constitutional Law at the Wake Forest University. [5]

Contents

Structured in chronological order, [2] Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege" discusses the development of free speech through controversies, which arose during the history of the United States. [9] These include the Quasi-War with France, the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, conflict regarding speech related to abolitionism and criticism of slavery, and speech related to criticism of the American Civil War. [3] [9] Curtis discusses the efforts of abolitionists Elijah Lovejoy and Hinton Helper. [2]

The book discusses in detail, attempts by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, to curtail free speech during the American Civil War. [3] He comments on the ways attitudes about free speech affected events in history related to this period of time, "The weakness of the popular free-speech tradition (especially in the South) encouraged violence that did not end with the Civil War  ...  [but was] revived during Reconstruction to silence those who supported civil and political rights for blacks". [2] Curtis discusses conflict involving people related to these historical events, including editors, political activists, and politicians. [9] The author discusses advocates of free speech before the recognition of this right in the U.S. court system. [9]

Curtis writes that despite the actions of the government, it is the actions of individuals through speech and protest that allow democracy to function appropriately. [4] The author states that, "again and again, people in power have treated speech that advocated lawful change through democratic process as an incitement to lawless action". [2] Curtis says that free speech rights in the U.S., which at present are believed to be given through 20th century court rulings, were actually developed first in "the forum of public opinion". [1] He says, "The history of free speech shows the need for broadly protective free speech rules applied generally and equally". [2]

He writes that during the 18th and 19th centuries in the U.S., protests by individuals and the press predated court judgments regarding the development of free speech. [1] The author says, "as Madison had expected, constitutional guarantees of liberty do their work at popular levels as well as at the level of institutions such as the Supreme Court of the United States, state supreme courts, Congress, and state legislatures. Popular views limit and channel both legislation and private action, each of which can either constrain or empower speech". [4] Curtis says that, "The similarity of current suppression theories to those of the past suggests caution. Historic attempts to use these ideas to suppress democratic discussion of positive social change should make us wary of attempts to resurrect them for benevolent purposes". [2]

Reception

Awards and honors

For his work on the book, Michael Kent Curtis was recognized with the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award, which recognizes contributions to the First Amendment. [9] He also received the Mayflower Cup Award, which honors the best non-fiction work by an individual from North Carolina, from the North Carolina Literary and Historical Association. [9]

Reviews

an extremely valuable contribution to the literature addressing the history of free speech in America.

 —Perspectives on Political Science [4]

In a review of the book for the Columbia Journalism Review , James Boylan said Curtis' work is a "rich and original study". [1] Reviewing the book for The Journal of American History , Michael P. Zuckert called it a "very fine book" that is "gracefully written and engaging to read". [3] He said, "After Curtis's book, nobody should be able to say that the Bill of Rights was unlikely to be on the minds of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment." [3] Zuckert wrote, "Sprinkled into the stories are fine analytic discussions." [3]

Writing in Perspectives on Political Science, Paul Weizer described the book as "an extremely valuable contribution to the literature addressing the history of free speech in America." [4] Weizer said, "Although there are countless books on the theories behind the speech guarantee embedded in our Constitution, Curtis brings a fresh perspective. Most First Amendment books begin with Supreme Court decisions from the early 1900s; Curtis reminds us that modern ideas about the protection of expression originated much earlier." [4] As to the writing quality of the book, Weizer wrote, "The first hundred years of American history are rich with stories such as this. Curtis does an outstanding job of bringing them to life. He is to be commended for keeping editorial comments to a minimum and allowing the participants to make his points for him. The book is painstakingly documented to provide first-person accounts from sources such as newspapers and town meetings." [4] Weizer recommended the book for those researching the subject matter, writing, "For specialists on free speech issues, the book provides remarkable detail." [4]

In a review for The Historian , Timothy C. Shiell of the University of Wisconsin–Stout wrote, "In providing the first detailed history of free speech from the Sedition Act of 1798 to the Fourteenth Amendment of the 1860s, Michael Kent Curtis offers a major contribution to the scholarship of both that era and of free speech." [2] Shiell wrote on the views put forth by the author in the book, "Curtis does not limit this erudite work to historical narration. He also addresses political and legal movements and ideas that influenced and were influenced by free-speech controversies such as theories of democracy, justifications for broad protections of free speech, and the doctrines of content neutrality and heckler's veto. His treatment of justifications for suppression is especially valuable." [2] Shiell concluded his review writing, "For at least these three reasons—the historical detail, the review of relevant legal and political theory, and the lessons from history—this book is a 'must read' for anyone interested in the period from 1798 to 1870 or in the development of free-speech theory and practice in the United States." [2]

Gordon Moran reviewed the book for the Journal of Information Ethics, writing, "In this book, Prof. Curtis  ...  provides a thorough account of the evolution of free speech, in theory and practice, from pre-Revolutionary times through the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment (1868). As a history book, it is worthy of being in the library of every high school, college, and university that teaches American history, and would also be very useful and instructive as a textbook for university courses in American studies and advanced courses in American history." [6] In a review for The Journal of Southern History, William Pannill wrote, "This is more a work of history than of law. Although the author summarizes the reasoning of legislatures and courts that overrode the First Amendment, he does not analyze the unfolding of constitutional doctrines." [10] Pannill concluded, "At 437 pages of text, the book is too long. The writing suffers from repetition. For example, the author reminds us again and again that the southern states feared that debates over slavery would lead to slave revolts-one time was sufficient to make the point. The chapters also jump around in time and subject. Pruning and redrafting would have improved the book for a wider audience. The story certainly deserves one." [10]

In his book Freedom of Speech: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution, author Keith Werhan placed Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege" among "leading works on free speech" during the American Civil War. [11] Werhan noted that the book includes "excellent discussions" of the Alien and Sedition Acts. [11] In addition to Werhan, Steven J. Heyman's book Free Speech and Human Dignity also recommended Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege" for "leading works" on freedom of speech. [12] Author Margaret Kohn recommended Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege" as a resource, "for extensive examples of the courts' willingness to countenance restrictions on speech", in her book Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space. [13]

In Free Expression and Democracy in America: A History, Stephen M. Feldman classed the book among "helpful sources on the history of free speech". [14] Writing in Lincoln's Censor: Milo Hascall and Freedom of the Press in Civil War Indiana, David W. Bulla wrote, "Curtis showed how freedom of the press has both functional and formal protections". [15] Judge Andrew P. Napolitano recommended Curtis' book in his books The Constitution in Exile, [16] and Constitutional Chaos, writing, "Michael Kent Curtis offers an excellent and detailed account of the troubled affair between Clement Vallandigham and Abraham Lincoln in this work." [17]

In Constitutional Democracy: Creating and Maintaining a Just Political Order, Walter F. Murphy wrote that Curtis "beautifully detailed" an incident when the U.S. Post Office refused to deliver abolitionist writings through their service. [18] In his book Eloquence and Reason: Creating a First Amendment Culture, Robert L. Tsai recommended Curtis' book, "for an account of antebellum debates over the scope of the First Amendment". [19] In her book Licentious Gotham: Erotic Publishing and Its Prosecution in Nineteenth-Century New York, Donna Dennis recommended Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege", "for evidence of commitment to freedom of speech and freedom of press among abolitionists". [20]

See also

Related Research Articles

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and therefore they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. The decision is widely considered the worst in the Supreme Court's history, being widely denounced for its overt racism, judicial activism, poor legal reasoning, and crucial role in the start of the American Civil War four years later. Legal scholar Bernard Schwartz said that it "stands first in any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions". A future chief justice, Charles Evans Hughes, called it the Court's "greatest self-inflicted wound".

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restrict the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The decision held that if a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit is a public official or candidate for public office, then not only must they prove the normal elements of defamation—publication of a false defamatory statement to a third party—they must also prove that the statement was made with "actual malice", meaning the defendant either knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded whether it might be false. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is frequently ranked as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the modern era.

In United States constitutional law, incorporation is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, the courts held that its protections extended only to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of the state and local governments. However, the post–Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other amendments, applying more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Abraham Lincoln and slavery</span>

Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery in the United States is one of the most discussed aspects of his life. Lincoln frequently expressed his moral opposition to slavery in public and private. "I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," he stated. "I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel." However, the question of what to do about it and how to end it, given that it was so firmly embedded in the nation's constitutional framework and in the economy of much of the country, even though concentrated in only the Southern United States, was complex and politically challenging. In addition, there was the unanswered question, which Lincoln had to deal with, of what would become of the four million slaves if liberated: how they would earn a living in a society that had almost always rejected them or looked down on their very presence.

Leonard Williams Levy was an American historian, the Andrew W. Mellon All-Claremont Professor of Humanities and chairman of the Graduate Faculty of History at Claremont Graduate School, California, who specialized in the history of basic American Constitutional freedoms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jack Balkin</span> American legal scholar

Jack M. Balkin is an American legal scholar. He is the Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment at Yale Law School. Balkin is the founder and director of the Yale Information Society Project (ISP), a research center whose mission is "to study the implications of the Internet, telecommunications, and the new information technologies for law and society." He also directs the Knight Law and Media Program and the Abrams Institute for Free Expression at Yale Law School.

David Brown was convicted of sedition because of his criticism of the United States federal government and received the harshest sentence for anyone under the Sedition Act of 1798 for erecting the Dedham Liberty Pole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech</span> Right to communicate ones opinions and ideas

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The right to freedom of expression has been recognised as a human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law by the United Nations. Many countries have constitutional law that protects free speech. Terms like free speech, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression are used interchangeably in political discourse. However, in a legal sense, the freedom of expression includes any activity of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

<i>Cyber Rights</i> 1998 book about cyberlaw by Mike Godwin

Cyber Rights: Defending Free Speech in the Digital Age is a non-fiction book about cyberlaw, written by free speech lawyer Mike Godwin. It was first published in 1998 by Times Books. It was republished in 2003 as a revised edition by The MIT Press. Godwin graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 1990 and was the first staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Written with a first-person perspective, Cyber Rights offers a background in the legal issues and history pertaining to free speech on the Internet. It documents the author's experiences in defending free speech online, and puts forth the thesis that "the remedy for the abuse of free speech is more speech". Godwin emphasizes that decisions made about the expression of ideas on the Internet affect freedom of speech in other media as well, as granted by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973), is a ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939 does not violate the First Amendment, and its implementing regulations are not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

<i>Beyond the First Amendment</i> 2005 book

Beyond the First Amendment: The Politics of Free Speech and Pluralism is a book about freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, written by author Samuel Peter Nelson. It was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2005. In it, Nelson discusses how the more general notion of free speech differs from that specifically applied to the First Amendment in American law.

<i>Freedom of Expression</i> (book) 2005 book by Kembrew McLeod

Freedom of Expression® is a book written by Kembrew McLeod about freedom of speech issues involving concepts of intellectual property. The book was first published in 2005 by Doubleday as Freedom of Expression®: Overzealous Copyright Bozos and Other Enemies of Creativity, and in 2007 by University of Minnesota Press as Freedom of Expression®: Resistance and Repression in the Age of Intellectual Property. The paperback edition includes a foreword by Lawrence Lessig. The author recounts a history of the use of counter-cultural artistry, illegal art, and the use of copyrighted works in art as a form of fair use and creative expression. The book encourages the reader to continue such uses in art and other forms of creative expression.

<i>Net.wars</i> 1997 book by Wendy M. Grossman

Net.wars is a non-fiction book by journalist Wendy M. Grossman about conflict and controversy among stakeholders on the Internet. It was published by NYU Press in 1997, and was simultaneously made available free as an online version. The book discusses conflicts which arose during the growth of the Internet from 1993 through 1997, labeled by Grossman as "boundary disputes". These disputes deal with issues including privacy, encryption, copyright, censorship, sex, and pornography. The author discusses history of organizations in their attempts to enforce their intellectual property on the Internet, against individuals who attempted to reveal confidential materials asserting it was in the public interest. Grossman frames these disputes with respect to overarching rights of freedom of speech and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

<i>The Best American Magazine Writing 2007</i>

The Best American Magazine Writing 2007 is a non-fiction book published by Columbia University Press, and edited by the American Society of Magazine Editors. It features recognized high-quality journalism pieces from the previous year. The book includes an account by journalist William Langewiesche of Vanity Fair about a controversial United States military operation in Iraq, an investigative journalism article for Rolling Stone by Janet Reitman, a piece published in Esquire by C.J. Chivers about the Beslan school hostage crisis, and an article by Christopher Hitchens about survivors of Agent Orange.

United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947), is a 4-to-3 ruling by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Hatch Act of 1939, as amended in 1940, does not violate the First, Fifth, Ninth, or Tenth amendments to U.S. Constitution.

<i>Freedom for the Thought That We Hate</i> 2007 non-fiction book

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in Schenck v. United States (1919), Whitney v. California (1927), United States v. Schwimmer (1929), New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), and New York Times Co. v. United States (1971).

The William O. Douglas Prize is given by the Commission on Freedom of Expression of the Speech Communication Association to honor those who contribute to writing about freedom of speech. The Award is named after William O. Douglas, who served as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1939 to 1975.

<i>Not in Front of the Children</i> Book by Marjorie Heins

Not in Front of the Children: "Indecency," Censorship, and the Innocence of Youth is a non-fiction book by attorney and civil libertarian, Marjorie Heins about freedom of speech and the relationship between censorship and the "think of the children" argument. The book presents a chronological history of censorship from Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and the Middle Ages to the present. It discusses notable censored works, including Ulysses by James Joyce, Lady Chatterley's Lover by D. H. Lawrence and the seven dirty words monologue by comedian George Carlin. Heins discusses censorship aimed at youth in the United States through legislation including the Children's Internet Protection Act and the Communications Decency Act.

<i>Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy</i> Book by Marjorie Heins

Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars is a non-fiction book by lawyer and civil libertarian Marjorie Heins that is about freedom of speech and the censorship of works of art in the early 1990s by the U.S. government. The book was published in 1993 by The New Press. Heins provides an overview of the history of censorship, including the 1873 Comstock laws, and then moves on to more topical case studies of attempts at suppression of free expression.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Boylan, James (June 2001). "Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"". Columbia Journalism Review. 40 (1): 86.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Shiell, Timothy C. (Spring–Summer 2002). "Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"". The Historian. 64 (3/4): 738–739. ISSN   0018-2370.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Zuckert, Michael P.; Curtis, Michael Kent (March 2002). "Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"". The Journal of American History. 88 (4): 1533–1534. doi:10.2307/2700660.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Weizer, Paul (Fall 2001). "Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"". Perspectives on Political Science. 30 (4): 237–238. ISSN   1045-7097.
  5. 1 2 3 Paul, Ellen Frankel; Fred D. Miller; Jeffrey Paul (2004). Freedom of Speech: Volume 21, Part 2. Cambridge University Press. p. Contributors. ISBN   0-521-60375-7.
  6. 1 2 Moran, Gordon (Spring 2004). "Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"". Journal of Information Ethics. 13 (1). United States: 91–93. ISSN   1061-9321.
  7. ↑ Curtis, Michael Kent (1995). "Critics of "Free Speech" and the Uses of the Past". Constitutional Commentary. 12 (1): 29–65.
  8. ↑ Curtis, Michael Kent (1996). ""Free Speech" and Its Discontents: The Rebellion against General Propositions and the Danger of Discretion". Wake Forest Law Review. 31 (2): 419–458.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 "Curtis book takes honors" (PDF). Window on Wake Forest. Wake Forest University. January 2002. p. 3. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 5, 2010. Retrieved March 26, 2010.
  10. 1 2 Pannill, William (August 2002). "Free Speech, "The People's Darling Privilege"". The Journal of Southern History. 68 (3). United States: 686–688. doi:10.2307/3070178. ISSN   0022-4642.
  11. 1 2 Werhan, Keith (2004). Freedom of Speech: A Reference Guide to the United States Constitution . Praeger. pp.  151–154. ISBN   0-313-31997-9.
  12. ↑ Heyman, Steven J. (2008). Free Speech and Human Dignity . Yale University Press. p.  211. ISBN   0-300-11486-9.
  13. ↑ Kohn, Margaret (2004). Brave New Neighborhoods: The Privatization of Public Space . Routledge. p.  44. ISBN   0-415-94462-7.
  14. ↑ Feldman, Stephen M. (2008). Free Expression and Democracy in America: A History . University of Chicago Press. p.  489. ISBN   0-226-24066-5.
  15. ↑ Bulla, David W. (2008). Lincoln's Censor: Milo Hascall and Freedom of the Press in Civil War Indiana. Purdue University Press. p. 244. ISBN   978-1-55753-473-6.
  16. ↑ Napolitano, Andrew P. (2007). The Constitution in Exile . Thomas Nelson. p.  184. ISBN   1-59555-070-4.
  17. ↑ Napolitano, Andrew P. (2007). Constitutional Chaos. Thomas Nelson. p. Notes: Chapter 3. ISBN   0-8499-4688-3.
  18. ↑ Murphy, Walter F. (2006). Constitutional Democracy: Creating and Maintaining a Just Political Order. The Johns Hopkins University Press. p.  57. ISBN   0-8018-8470-5.
  19. ↑ Tsai, Robert L. (2008). Eloquence and Reason: Creating a First Amendment Culture . Yale University Press. p.  167. ISBN   978-0-300-11723-3.
  20. ↑ Dennis, Donna (2009). Licentious Gotham: Erotic Publishing and Its Prosecution in Nineteenth-Century New York. Harvard University Press. p. 323. ISBN   0-674-03283-7.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.