Customer Reviews

Speaking Freely: Trials of the First Amendment

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Have just begun the book and already I can say say it is a fair, must read for anyone, conservative or liberal or middle roader who wants to see or know why the First Amendment is such a national treausre. And how no matter who is in office, attempts to censor are always a concern. The liberals want to restrict hate speech, cigarette advertising while the conservatives seem hell bent on restricting free speech rights of post 911 Arab Americans or anything having to do with the military. And the author is a constant reminder to all of us, citizens, that we can easily loose Constitutional rights if we do not fight to keep them.

Noted Attorney Floyd Abrams presents a balanced, mostly non-partisan look at the trials and tribulations of modern free speech in his new book, Speaking Freely. This is no arid scholarly commentary on famous cases taken from the court reporter's minutes. Instead, Speaking Freely is straight from Abrams' front row seat as an attorney arguing before courts across the land all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Abrams examines cases which involve everything from his first appearance before the Supreme Court, arguing in defense of the New York Times against the Nixon administration's attempt to block printing of the Pentagon Papers in its pages to defending NBC investigative reporter Brian Ross against Las Vegas icon Wayne "Las Vegas' Most Admired Citizen" Newton.

Abrams is refreshingly candid about these experiences and several others in this intellectually weighty but still breezy page-turner about the right to free speech. It is also a caution to those who would blithely support current Bush Administration tactics to curb free speech in the name of "security." Abrams, without a heavy hand, shows just how fragile the whole concept is when in the hands of those seeking political power or the expediency of easy answers to grievances.

The chapter on Wayne Newton is enjoyable in a "True Hollywood Story" kind of way. In it, Newton is described as having mafia ties by NBC reporter Ross in a 1980's televised news broadcast. It is immediately evident that Abrams has no love for Newton or Las Vegas, and says so. His opening sentence in the Wayne Newton chapter quotes Otto Friedrich, who said that Vegas "is what hell might be like if it had been planned and built by New York gangsters."

Abrams also sets the mood by describing Las Vegas' McCarran airport:
"It is always something of a shock to land there in Las Vegas's airport (named after Pat McCarran, a particularly repellent and reactionary senator,) filled with screaming slot machines."

Abrams spares no evidence that Newton was involved with shady characters in a deal involving the Aladdin Hotel and Casino, and that the NBC report that Newton had perjured himself before the Nevada Gaming Commission was correct. Wayne Newton ("the embodiment of Las Vegas") disagreed and sued for libel.

Abrams' wry commentary on Las Vegas and the smarmy Newton are interesting on their own merits, but his play-by-play of the discovery, trial and twelve years of legal wrangling are the real meat of this true story. We learn of the dangers of trying a hometown hero before his hometown, and the importance of preserving free speech when speaking truth to power and popularity.

Speaking Freely also goes in-depth into Abrams work opposing former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's attempts to bully the Brooklyn Museum into censoring artwork; McCarthyism and Libel, Campaign Finance Reform as a possible danger to free speech and more.

The chapters are engaging, the writing sprinkled with character studies of the players and the often amusing observances of the people involved. Abrams has his biases, but he clearly loves the law first and foremost. This book is a balanced, intellectually honest and excellent introduction into how our court system works-and also how it occasionally does not.

I read this book in between "The Nine" by Jeffery Toobin The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court and "The Brethren" by Bob WoodwardThe Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court. I almost gave up reading law related books because of it. The book is to be a list of cases he has been involved in and what he did in them--but it lacks any of the draw of a real insider account. It isn't a book about free speech it is more about Floyd Abrams and what he does. The few things you couldn't know otherwise are limited to his thoughts at the time (might I lose this case again?) for the most part. As far as law related books go there are better ones that are more interesting.

Okay, I should have paid more attention in school when we studied the First Amendment but I honestly did not believe it would be information that I would affect me so much in life. This book was easy to read and shocking to learn. The examples Abrams offers in his book make my head shake with wonder. I couldn't help but continue to think about his case studies well after I read the book. He presents his information to non-lawyers so much better than any textbook could have managed. Outstanding book.

Floyd Abrams is an acknowleged expert in First Amendment issues. This collection of some of the dramatic cases on which he worked makes for interesting reading. Even for non lawyers the style is easy to understand and focuses on the human interest of the cases rather than the legal maneuvering (though for lawyers there are some interesting pointers that can be gleaned). A very enjoyable and informative read.

Floyd Abrams is todays Voltaire who said something like, "I dont agree with what you say but I'll defend to death your right to say it", or maybe it was Eminem. Either way, Abrams recounts his prolific battles for the literal interpetation of the first amendment. This is a must read for aspiring journalists, Lawyers, and gangster rappers. His writing is engaging like a trashy novel but isnt brain junk food. The best part of the book are his candid, but tactful dogging of the iconic Wayne Newton. Courtroom translations are colorful although repetitive and rather dogmatic. Still, it gives readers a sense of what it feels like to be in a courtroom defending hot issues against people like Newton, Guilliani, and Nixon. If you believe in the unmistakable interpetation of the first amendment, then read this book. If not, then read this book and you surely will. If not, then you are an ignorant oaf unworthy of breathing air.

I'm biased as I have been a fan of Floyd Abrams for years, but I can honestly say he does a terrific job in discussing some of the prominent First Amendment cases he's been involved with in his distinguished career. Of course, the memorable Pentagon Papers case that Abrams won is discussed in length.

Abrams spares no one from criticism, including Wayne Newton and the sainted Rudy Giulani. However, the best part of the book was his discussion of the campaign finance reform lawsuit. Bitter over losing the case, not for himself but for the cause of freedom, he rips into the liberal judges who upheld the law. Their bias against him is clearly evident. That's another reason I admire him: his willingness to criticize the left as well as the right for suppressing free speech. The right does it in the name of "national security" and "morality"; the left does it in the name of "diversity" and "political correctness." With freedom on attack from both sides of the political spectrum, the country needs champions of the Constitution like Floyd Abrams.

I highly recommend this book to any reader concerned with the erosion of our freedoms.

The book provided a real insight into the process of the way that lawyers address the very complex issues related to the First Amendment.

If you read just one book on media law this year (but why would you limit yourself?), make it this one. In addition to being an entertaining and enlightening look inside some of the highest profile media and First Amendment cases of that past 35 years--including the Pentagon Papers, Wayne Newton's libel case against NBC, the Brooklyn Museum of Art case, and the case challenging McCain-Feingold-- this book, by the country's widely-acknowledged dean of First Amendment litigation, serves as a good primer for those not versed in First Amendment and media law, and as a refresher for those already familiar with the law.

As I write this revieThe One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11w, CNN is reporting that the Bush Administration is threatening the New York Times with prosecution for revealing the NSA wire-tapping program that by-passed the FISA court, which has the EXCLUSIVE mandate to review all such intrusions. The Bush Administration is evidently ungrateful about the fact that the NYT stupidly held back on the story until after Rove could steal the election from Kerry by encouraging the Ohio State Secretary committing criminal acts in twelve districts. At the same time, there is also a moronic proposed amendment to the Constitution to prohibit the burning of the American flag in protest.

"Speaking Freely" is an extraordinary book that documents, over and over again, why our national security lies not only in force of arms but also in, quoting Judge Murray Gurfein (June 1971), a "cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitious press (that) must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."

The Cheney-Bush Administration is moving toward totalitarianism, and appears seriously stupid (another of those ideological fantasies) in believing that they can cover up their ineptitude by censoring the press.

See my reviews of The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11; How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok and The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office to better understand what other authorities are saying about the lunacy of this position. These two guys are a combination of impeachable (mostly Cheney) and laughingstock (mostly Bush) who have leveraged the extremist Republican machine to steal two presidential elections and violate so many international and domestic laws as to be richly eligible for a public tarring and feathering.

This book, "Speaking Freely," is a massive vaccination for the public against the disease of "state secrecy" that is used to cover up incompetence, inpropriety, and high crimes and misdemeanors richly deserving of impeachment.

Please note that the law suit of the New York Times for "blowing" NSA's capabilities is actually a cover-up for the fact that we are going deaf and blind because Al Qaeda is not stupid--they have been moving "offline" since 9-11, and the Administration is preparing to pretend that their failure to be effective against Al Qaeda is the fault of the New York Times.

Floyd Abrams may well be one of the most valuable Americans in modern history. He defended the NYT in the Pentagon Papers, and won. Today, the NYT should rely on the sensibility of the people to defend them. Deep in his book, Counselor Abrams makes the point that journalists MUST have the freedom to listen to sources "off the record," and he places the burden for protecting secrets on those who choose to leak them for whatever reason.

I am reminded that the incumbent President is the "leaker in chief" who seems to make the law suit his needs. As one Constitutional lawyer has stated, he has the power neither to interpret the law nor make the law. It is George Bush, and his string puller Dick Cheney, who are "out of bounds" and richly deserving of impeachment.

For additional perspective:
Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency
Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back