Freedom for the Thought That We Hate

Last updated

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate.jpg
Cover art of the original publication
Author Anthony Lewis
Cover artistCover: Brent Wilcox
Jacket: Anita Van De Ven
Jacket photo: Ken Cedeno
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
SeriesBasic Ideas
Subject Freedom of speech  – United States
GenreConstitutional Law
Published2007 (Basic Books)
Media typeHardcover
Pages240
ISBN 978-0-465-03917-3
OCLC 173659591
342.7308/53
LC Class KF4770.L49

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).

Contents

The title of the book is drawn from the dissenting opinion by Supreme Court Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in United States v. Schwimmer. Holmes wrote that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." [1] Lewis warns the reader against the potential for government to take advantage of periods of fear and upheaval in a post-9/11 society to suppress freedom of speech and criticism by citizens.

The book was positively received by reviewers, including Jeffrey Rosen in The New York Times , Richard H. Fallon Jr. in Harvard Magazine , Nat Hentoff, two National Book Critics Circle members, and Kirkus Reviews . Jeremy Waldron commented on the work for The New York Review of Books and criticized Lewis' stance towards freedom of speech with respect to hate speech. Waldron elaborated on this criticism in his book The Harm in Hate Speech (2012), in which he devoted a chapter to Lewis' book. This prompted a critical analysis of both works in The New York Review of Books in June 2012 by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Contents

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights Pg1of1 AC.jpg
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate analyzes the value of freedom of speech and presents an overview of the historical development of rights afforded by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. [2] Its title derives from Justice Holmes' admonition, in his dissenting opinion in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), [1] [3] [4] that the First Amendment's guarantees are most worthy of protection in times of fear and upheaval, when calls for suppression of dissent are most strident and superficially appealing. [1] [3] [4] Holmes wrote that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." [1] [3] [4]

The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation that limits free speech or freedom of the press. [3] [5] The author analyzes the impact of this clause and refers to the writer of the United States Constitution, James Madison, who believed that freedom of the press would serve as a form of separation of powers to the government. [5] Lewis writes that an expansive respect for freedom of speech informs the reader as to why citizens should object to governmental attempts to block the media from reporting about the causes of a controversial war. [5] Lewis warns that, in a state in which controversial views are not allowed to be spoken, citizens and reporters merely serve as advocates for the state itself. [5] He recounts key historic events in which fear led to overreaching acts by the government, particularly from the executive branch. [5] The author gives background on the century-long process by which the U.S. judicial system began defending publishers and writers from attempts at suppression of speech by the government. [4]

The title Freedom for the Thought That We Hate derives from a passage in Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in United States v. Schwimmer (1929). Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr circa 1930-edit.jpg
The title Freedom for the Thought That We Hate derives from a passage in Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s dissent in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).

In 1798, the federal government, under President John Adams, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which deemed "any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States" a criminal act. [3] [6] The Alien and Sedition Acts were used for political impact against members of the Republican Party in order to punish them for criticizing the government. [5] Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic-Republican, was elected the next president in 1800; Lewis cites this as an example of the American public's dissatisfaction with Adams' actions against freedom of speech. [5] [7] After taking office in 1801, Jefferson issued pardons to those convicted under the Alien and Sedition Acts. [3] [7] Lewis interprets later historical events as affronts to freedom of speech, including the Sedition Act of 1918, which effectively outlawed criticism of the government's conduct of WW I; and the McCarran Internal Security Act and Smith Act, which were used to imprison American communists who were critical of the government during the McCarthy era. [5]

During World War I, with increased fear among the American public and attempts at suppression of criticism by the government, the First Amendment was given wider examination in the U.S. Supreme Court. [5] Lewis writes that Associate Justices Louis Brandeis and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., began to interpret broader support for freedom of speech imparted by the First Amendment. [5] Holmes wrote in the case of Schenck v. United States that freedom of speech must be defended except for situations in which "substantive evils" are caused through a "clear and present danger" arising from such speech. [5] [8] The author reflects on his view of speech in the face of imminent danger in an age of terrorism. [6] He writes that the U.S. Constitution permits suppression of speech in situations of impending violence, and cautions use of the law to suppress expressive acts including burning a flag or using offensive slang terms. [6] Lewis asserts that punitive measures can be taken against speech which incites terrorism to a group of people willing to commit such acts. [6]

The book recounts an opinion written by Brandeis and joined by Holmes in the 1927 case of Whitney v. California which further developed the notion of the power of the people to speak out. [4] Brandeis and Holmes emphasized the value of liberty, and identified the most dangerous factor to freedom as an apathetic society averse to voicing their opinions in public. [4] [9]

There will always be authorities who try to make their own lives more comfortable by suppressing critical comment. ... But I am convinced that the fundamental American commitment to free speech, disturbing speech, is no longer in doubt.

 —Anthony Lewis, Introduction,
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate [3]

In the 1964 Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , the court ruled that speech about issues of public impact should be unrestricted, vigorous and public, even if such discussion communicates extreme negative criticism of public servants and members of government. [3] [10] Lewis praises this decision, and writes that it laid the groundwork for a press more able to perform investigative journalism concerning controversies, including the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War. [3] He cites the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision as an example of "Madisonian" philosophy towards freedom of speech espoused by James Madison. [7] The author examines the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case of New York Times Co. v. United States , and endorses the court's decision, which allowed the press to publish classified material relating to the Vietnam War. [5] [11]

The author questions the actions of the media with respect to privacy. He observes that public expectations regarding morality and what constitutes an impermissible violation of the right to privacy has changed over time. [5] Lewis cites the dissenting opinion by Brandeis in Olmstead v. United States , which supported a right to privacy. [5] [12]

Lewis warns that, during periods of heightened anxiety, the free speech rights of Americans are at greater risk: "there will always be authorities who try to make their own lives more comfortable by suppressing critical comment." [3] He concludes that the evolution of interpretation of the rights afforded by the First Amendment has created stronger support for freedom of speech. [3]

Themes

The book's central theme is a warning that, in times of strife and increased fear, there is a danger of repression and suppression of dissent by those in government who seek to limit freedom of speech. [13] In an interview with the author, Deborah Solomon of The New York Times Magazine wrote that American politics has frequently used fear to justify repression. [13] Lewis pointed out to Solomon that, under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, individuals who protested against President Woodrow Wilson's sending of soldiers to Russia were tried and given a twenty-year jail sentence. [13] The author explained that his motivation for writing the book was to recognize the unparalleled civil liberties in the U.S., including freedom of speech and freedom of the press. [13] He identified reductions in freedoms of citizens as a result of governmental action taken after the September 11 attacks. [14]

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate discusses the capability and liberty of citizens to criticize their government. [15] Lewis asserts that the U.S. has the most unreserved speech of any nation. [15] [16] Law professor Jeremy Waldron gave the example of his ability to criticize the president or call the vice president and Secretary of Defense war criminals, without fear of retribution from law enforcement for such statements. [15] The book contrasts present-day free speech liberties afforded to Americans and those possessed by citizens in earlier centuries. [15] The author argues that the scope of civil liberties in the U.S. has increased over time, owing to a desire for freedom among its people being held as an integral value. [16] Lewis observes that, in contemporary application of the law, presidents are the subject of satire and denunciation. [15] He notes that it is unlikely a vociferous critic would face a jail sentence simply for voicing such criticism. [15]

Release and reception

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens discussed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate in a review for The New York Review of Books. John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens discussed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate in a review for The New York Review of Books .

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate was first published in 2007 by Basic Books in New York, with the subtitle, A Biography of the First Amendment. [18] [19] For the second printing, in both New York and London in 2008, the book's subtitle was simplified to Tales of the First Amendment. That change was reverted for the remaining printings, including the paperback edition in 2009 and a large print edition in 2010. [18] [20] [21] E-book versions were released for the first, third and fourth printings; an audiobook was released with the second printing, and re-released with the fourth. [18] [22] [23] The book has also been translated into Chinese, and was published in Beijing in 2010. [24]

The book was positively received by critics. Jeffrey Rosen, who reviewed the book for The New York Times, was surprised by the author's departure from traditional civil libertarian views. [25] Rosen pointed out that Lewis did not support absolute protection for journalists from breaking confidentiality with their anonymous sources, even in situations involving criminal acts. [25] Nat Hentoff called the book an engrossing and accessible survey of the First Amendment. [4] Kirkus Reviews considered the book an excellent chronological account of the First Amendment, subsequent legislation, and case law. [26]

Richard H. Fallon Jr. reviewed the book for Harvard Magazine , and characterized Freedom for the Thought That We Hate as a clear and captivating background education in U.S. freedom of speech legislation. [27] Fallon praised the author's ability to weave descriptions of historical events into an entertaining account. [27] Robyn Blumner of the St. Petersburg Times wrote that Lewis aptly summarized the development of the U.S. Constitution's protections of freedom of speech and of the press. [28] She observed that the book forcefully presented the author's admiration of brave judges who had helped to develop the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's protections of the rights of freedom of expression as a defense against censorship. [28]

Writing for the Hartford Courant , Bill Williams stated that the book should be mandatory reading for high school and college students. [3] Anne Phillips wrote in her review for The News-Gazette that the book is a concise and well-written description of the conflicts the country faces when grappling with the notions of freedom of expression, free speech, and freedom of the press. [29] Writing for The Christian Science Monitor , Chuck Leddy noted that the author helps readers understand the importance of freedom of speech in a democracy, especially during a period of military conflict, when there is increased controversy over the appropriateness of dissent and open dialogue. [5]

Jeremy Waldron reviewed the book for The New York Review of Books , and was critical of Lewis's broad stance towards freedom of speech with respect to hate speech. [30] Waldron later elaborated this position in his 2012 book The Harm in Hate Speech, in which he devoted an entire chapter to Lewis's book. [31] Waldron emphasized that the problem with an expansive view of free speech is not the harm of hateful thoughts, but rather the negative impact resulting from widespread publication of the thoughts. [31] He questioned whether children of racial groups criticized by widely published hate speech would be able to succeed in such an environment. [31] Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens analyzed The Harm in Hate Speech and discussed Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, in a review for The New York Review of Books. [17] Justice Stevens recounted Lewis's argument that an acceptance of hate speech is necessary, because attempts to regulate it would cause encroachment upon expression of controversial viewpoints. [17] He pointed out that Lewis and Waldron agreed that Americans have more freedom of speech than citizens of any other country. [17] In his review, Stevens cited the 2011 decision in Snyder v. Phelps as evidence that the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court supported the right of the people to express hateful views on matters of public importance. [17] Stevens concluded that, although Waldron was unsuccessful in convincing him that legislators should ban all hate speech, The Harm in Hate Speech persuaded him that government leaders should refrain from using such language themselves. [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that: regulate an establishment of religion; prohibit the free exercise of religion; abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clear and present danger</span> Free speech doctrine in US constitutional law

Clear and present danger was a doctrine adopted by the Supreme Court of the United States to determine under what circumstances limits can be placed on First Amendment freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. Created by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. to refine the bad tendency test, it was never fully adopted and both tests were ultimately replaced in 1969 with Brandenburg v. Ohio's "imminent lawless action" test.

Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., concluded that Charles Schenck, who distributed flyers to draft-age men urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not protect Schenck from prosecution, even though, "in many places and in ordinary times, Schenck, in saying all that was said in the circular, would have been within his constitutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done." In this case, Holmes said, "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Therefore, Schenck could be punished.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951) were overturned.

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.

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society. Whitney was explicitly overruled by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969.

Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. Along with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago (1897), it was one of the first major cases involving the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It was also one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1902 to 1932

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. was an American jurist who served as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. Holmes is one of the most widely cited Supreme Court justices and among the most influential American judges in history, noted for his long service, pithy opinions—particularly those on civil liberties and American constitutional democracy—and deference to the decisions of elected legislatures. Holmes retired from the court at the age of 90, an unbeaten record for oldest justice on the Supreme Court. He previously served as a Brevet Colonel in the American Civil War, in which he was wounded three times, as an associate justice and chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and as Weld Professor of Law at his alma mater, Harvard Law School. His positions, distinctive personality, and writing style made him a popular figure, especially with American progressives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Freedom of speech in the United States</span> Overview of the human rights history in the North American country

In the United States, freedom of speech and expression is strongly protected from government restrictions by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, many state constitutions, and state and federal laws. Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. The term "freedom of speech" embedded in the First Amendment encompasses the decision what to say as well as what not to say. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized several categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment and has recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech. The First Amendment's constitutional right of free speech, which is applicable to state and local governments under the incorporation doctrine, prevents only government restrictions on speech, not restrictions imposed by private individuals or businesses unless they are acting on behalf of the government. However, It can be restricted by time, place and manner in limited circumstances. Some laws may restrict the ability of private businesses and individuals from restricting the speech of others, such as employment laws that restrict employers' ability to prevent employees from disclosing their salary to coworkers or attempting to organize a labor union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anthony Lewis</span> American journalist (1927–2013)

Joseph Anthony Lewis was an American public intellectual and journalist. He was a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize and was a columnist for The New York Times. He is credited with creating the field of legal journalism in the United States.

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 which made it a criminal offense to urge the curtailment of production of the materials necessary to wage the war against Germany with intent to hinder the progress of the war. The 1918 Amendment is commonly referred to as if it were a separate Act, the Sedition Act of 1918.

"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a popular analogy for speech or actions whose principal purpose is to create panic, and in particular for speech or actions which may for that reason be thought to be outside the scope of free speech protections. The phrase is a paraphrasing of a dictum, or non-binding statement, from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The case was later partially overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action.

United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It concerned a pacifist applicant for naturalization who in the interview declared not to be willing to "take up arms personally" in defense of the United States. Originally found unable by the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to take the prescribed oath of allegiance, a decision reversed in appeal, the case was argued before the Supreme Court, which ruled against the applicant, and thus denied her the possibility of becoming a United States citizen.

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977), arising out of what is sometimes referred to as the Skokie Affair, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court dealing with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. This case is considered a "classic" free speech case in constitutional law classes. Related court decisions are captioned Skokie v. NSPA, Collin v. Smith, and Smith v. Collin. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4, per curiam. The Supreme Court's 1977 ruling granted certiorari and reversed and remanded the Illinois Supreme Court's denial to lift the lower court's injunction on the NSPA's march. In other words: the courts decided a person's assertion that speech is being restrained must be reviewed immediately by the judiciary. By requiring the state court to consider the neo-Nazis' appeal without delay, the U.S. Supreme Court decision opened the door to allowing the National Socialist Party of America to march.

Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976), was a landmark Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court held unconstitutional prior restraints on media coverage during criminal trials.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Louis Brandeis</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1916 to 1939

Louis Dembitz Brandeis was an American lawyer who served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.

Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive and disseminate ideas without restriction. Viewed as an integral component of a democratic society, intellectual freedom protects an individual's right to access, explore, consider, and express ideas and information as the basis for a self-governing, well-informed citizenry. Intellectual freedom comprises the bedrock for freedoms of expression, speech, and the press and relates to freedoms of information and the right to privacy.

Time, Inc. v. Hill, 385 U.S. 374 (1967), is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in balance with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and principles of freedom of speech. The Court held 6–3 that the latter requires that merely negligent intrusions into the former by the media not be civilly actionable. It expanded that principle from its landmark defamation holding in New York Times v. Sullivan.

<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.

Hate speech in the United States cannot be directly regulated by the government due to the fundamental right to freedom of speech protected by the Constitution. While "hate speech" is not a legal term in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that most of what would qualify as hate speech in other western countries is legally protected speech under the First Amendment. In a Supreme Court case on the issue, Matal v. Tam (2017), the justices unanimously reaffirmed that there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment and that the U.S. government may not discriminate against speech on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Holmes Jr., Oliver Wendell (May 27, 1929). "Dissenting opinion". United States v. Schwimmer. Supreme Court of the United States. p.  279 U.S. 644  .
  2. ↑ Esposito, Martha (January 13, 2008). "Book Beat: New books for the new year include county native's nonfiction". Burlington County Times . Willingboro, New Jersey. p. 3; Section: Outlook.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Williams, Bill (February 10, 2008). "The majesty of the First Amendment". Hartford Courant . p. G4; Section: Arts.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hentoff, Nat (January 30, 2008). "The right from which others flow". Tulsa World . Tulsa, Oklahoma. p. A13.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Leddy, Chuck (January 8, 2008). "A balance between free speech and fear". The Christian Science Monitor . p. 16; Section: Features, Books.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Mitchell, Thomas (February 10, 2008). "Freedom for – speech we hate". Las Vegas Review-Journal . Las Vegas, Nevada. p. 2D.
  7. 1 2 3 Barcousky, Len (May 18, 2008). "'Freedom For the Thought That We Hate' by Anthony Lewis – How First Amendment survives". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . Pennsylvania. p. E-4. Archived from the original on February 19, 2014. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
  8. ↑ Holmes Jr., Oliver Wendell (March 3, 1919). "Majority opinion". Schenck v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States. p.  249 U.S. 47  .
  9. ↑ Brandeis, Louis; Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (May 16, 1927). "Concurring opinion". Whitney v. California. Supreme Court of the United States. p.  274 U.S. 357  .
  10. ↑ Brennan Jr., William J. (March 9, 1964). "Majority opinion". New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. Supreme Court of the United States. p.  376 U.S. 254  .
  11. ↑ Per curiam (June 30, 1971). "Majority opinion". New York Times Co. v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States. p.  403 U.S. 713  .
  12. ↑ Brandeis, Louis (June 4, 1928). "Dissenting opinion". Olmstead v. United States. Supreme Court of the United States. p.  277 U.S. 438  .
  13. 1 2 3 4 Solomon, Deborah (December 23, 2007). "Questions for Anthony Lewis – Speech Rules" . The New York Times Magazine . Retrieved November 6, 2012.
  14. ↑ Neier, Aryeh (January 2008). "Review – May I Speak Freely? – Anthony Lewis on the First Amendment's march to victory". Columbia Journalism Review . Archived from the original on June 11, 2007. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Waldron, Jeremy (May 29, 2008). "Free Speech & the Menace of Hysteria". The New York Review of Books . Vol. 55, no. 9. Archived from the original on October 18, 2013. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
  16. 1 2 Williams, Juan (2011). Muzzled: The Assault on Honest Debate. New York: Crown. pp.  244–245, 248–250. ISBN   978-0307952011.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stevens, John Paul (June 7, 2012). "Should Hate Speech Be Outlawed?". The New York Review of Books . Vol. 59, no. 10. Archived from the original on May 19, 2012. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
  18. 1 2 3 OCLC. Formats and Editions of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment (Book, 2007). OCLC   173659591 – via WorldCat.
  19. ↑ Lewis, Anthony (2007). Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment. New York: Basic Books. ISBN   9780465039173.
  20. ↑ OCLC. Formats and Editions of Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: Tales of the First Amendment (Book, 2008). OCLC   181068910 – via WorldCat.
  21. ↑ Lewis, Anthony (2008). Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: Tales of the First Amendment. London: Perseus Running (Distributor). ISBN   9780465039173.
  22. ↑ Lewis, Anthony (2010). Freedom for the Thought That We Hate. New York: Perseus Books Group. ISBN   9780465012930.
  23. ↑ Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment (Audiobook, 2010). OCLC. 2013. OCLC   496960479 – via WorldCat.
  24. ↑ 言论的边界 : 美国宪法第一修正案简史 / Yan lun de bian jie : Meiguo xian fa di yi xiu zheng an jian shi (Book, 2010). OCLC. 2013. OCLC   657029139 – via WorldCat.
  25. 1 2 Rosen, Jeffrey (January 13, 2008). "Say What You Will – Freedom for the Thought That We Hate – Anthony Lewis – Book review" . The New York Times . Retrieved November 6, 2012.
  26. ↑ "Freedom for the Thought That We Hate". Kirkus Reviews . October 15, 2007. Archived from the original on September 28, 2013. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
  27. 1 2 Fallon, Richard H. (May–June 2008). "Book Review – Freeing Speech – How judge-made law gave meaning to the First Amendment". Harvard Magazine . pp. 27–30. Archived from the original on October 18, 2011. Retrieved November 6, 2012.
  28. 1 2 Blumner, Robyn (March 2, 2008). "Freedom Comes First". St. Petersburg Times . Florida. p. 10L; Section: Latitudes.
  29. ↑ Phillips, Anne (September 20, 2009). "Manners and freedom taken for granted". The News-Gazette . Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. p. F–3.
  30. ↑ Liptak, Adam (June 12, 2008). "Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech" . The New York Times . p. A–10. Retrieved September 21, 2013.
  31. 1 2 3 Waldron, Jeremy (2012). "Anthony Lewis's Freedom for the Thought That We Hate". The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. pp. 18–34. ISBN   9780674065895.

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.