We are now exactly one month from the release of my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. I am happy to share the reviews from writers, academics, journalists, and civil libertarians of the book, which is available for pre-order here. Those ordering now will have the first prints shipped to them on June 18th.
I am deeply grateful to these early reviewers for their generous comments about the book. It is meant to offer a comprehensive look at the meaning, history, and current threats to free speech in America. While it may displease or discomfort others in these fields, it is offered as a foundation for restoring this truly indispensable right.
Reviews of the Turley book:
“Jonathan Turley’s magnum opus should be required reading for everyone who cares about free speech—certainly including anyone who questions or criticizes strong free speech protection. This a unique synthesis of the historical, philosophical, artistic, and even physiological bases for protecting free speech as a right to which all human beings are inherently entitled, and Turley provides riveting accounts of the courageous individuals, throughout history, who have struggled and sacrificed in order to exercise and defend the right. The Indispensable Right is an indispensable book.”
—Nadine Strossen, former president of the American Civil Liberties Union
“Brilliant and intellectually honest, Jonathan Turley has few peers as a legal scholar today. With The Indispensable Right, he has given us a robust reexamination and defense of free speech as a right. Rich with historical content and insight, this superbly-written book calls out both the left and the right for attacks on free speech while offering in the final chapter a path forward.”
—William P. Barr, former Attorney General and author of the No. 1 New York Times bestseller One Damn Thing After Another.
“This efficient volume is packed with indispensable information delivered with proper passion. Jonathan Turley surveys the fraught history of “the indispensable right” and today’s dismayingly broad retreat from its defense. He is especially illuminating on how the concept of “harm” from speech has been broadened to serve the interest of censors.”
—George F. Will, Pulitzer Prize winner and Washington Post columnist.
“The First Amendment has consumed Jonathan Turley for more than thirty years. Lucky for us that he waited until now, amidst a climate of unprecedented rage rhetoric, to deliver a master class on the unvarnished history of free speech in America. The Indispensable Right is enlightening and engaging. It is also a cautionary tale against state overcorrection of the often acrimonious, free exchange of ideas that are an essential part of the human experience.”
—Michael Smerconish, host of CNN’s “Smerconish”
“During these often-bitter times, Jonathan Turley is my “go-to” commentator for smart, clear and honest analysis on any difficult legal controversy.”
—Jim Webb, former Democratic U.S. Senator, Secretary of the Navy, and bestselling author
“Jonathan Turley’s book is the rarest of accomplishments: a timely and brilliantly original yet disciplined and historically grounded treatment of free speech. He dispels the view that our current social turmoil is ‘uncharted waters’—from the 1790’s Whiskey Rebels to the 1920’s Wobblies to the 1950’s communists, we’ve been here before—and argues persuasively that free speech is a human need and that we must resist the urge to restrict speech as ‘disinformation’ or ‘seditious’ or offensive to ‘woke’ sensibilities.”
—Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney General and U.S. District Judge
“Jonathan Turley is one of the most astute and most honest analysts of the intersection of politics and law. Thirty years in the making, this book brilliantly proposes means for preserving the most important Constitutional right: the right to free speech. Elegantly written, exhaustively researched, and passionately argued, Turley has given us a superb and necessary tract for our time.”
—Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History Emeritus, Northwestern University School of Law
“Jonathan Turley recognizes free speech as an essential good—an activity that is central to our very nature as human beings. This is in sharp contrast with those who defend free speech as merely instrumental to some other value, like democracy or the pursuit of truth; rationales that are then used to justify limiting speech in ways that obstruct human flourishing. In this important book, he explains why free speech has historically come under threat during periods of rage and proposes policies that will protect freedom of speech from those who would today destroy this indispensable right.”
—Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law Center
“The Indispensable Right is a courageous, provocative case by one of America’s most prolific public intellectuals for resurrecting natural law or embracing an autonomous basis for the protection of free speech. Not all First Amendment defenders will be persuaded––but one needn’t sign on to Turley’s robust view of free speech to appreciate the unique clarity and deep historical research he brings to his argument. Read this insightful book to understand the peril of today’s broad-based assault on free speech.”
—Michael J. Glennon, Professor of Constitutional and International Law, Tufts University, author of Free Speech and Turbulent Freedom: The Dangerous Allure of Censorship in the Digital Era.
“Extraordinary and needed.”
—Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell professor of politics at Princeton University
A vigorous defense of free speech, a right enshrined but often hobbled or outright abrogated. A smart book that invites argument—civil argument, that is, with good faith and tolerance.
—Kirkus Book Reviews
I suppose that authors are very nervous on the eve of book releases. If, God forbid, the book doesn’t sell, you’re going to feel crushed.
So here’s hoping this book sells at least 100,000 copies.
Seth
Professor Turley, consider entering into a co-marketing agreement for your book sales with NFL Kansas City Chief’s QB Harrison Butker. It is being reported that the NFL Store keeps running out of his jersey because women are buying them in droves. P Diddy, of course, with a now infamous video circulating on the internet of he kicking his girlfriend brutally on the floor, is being ignored by the MSM. Diddy couldn’t sell a glass of water in the Sahara. But the Left would be more willing to drink piss from a Bud Light trans, then buy QB Butker’s jersey. Once again, the people are siding with traditional family values and the jersey sales speak for themselves. Contact the NFL about that co-marketing agreement. I’ll waive my right to a broker’s fee 😉
Hall of Fame coach praises Chiefs’ Harrison Butker, whose jersey sales are skyrocketing
https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/for-petes-sake/article288537212.html
His speech is amazing and on point.
excerpt:
For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.
I can tell you that my beautiful wife, Isabelle, would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother. I’m on the stage today and able to be the man I am because I have a wife who leans into her vocation. I’m beyond blessed with the many talents God has given me, but it cannot be overstated that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife, and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker.
[Applause lasting 18 seconds]
She is a primary educator to our children. She is the one who ensures I never let football or my business become a distraction from that of a husband and father. She is the person that knows me best at my core, and it is through our marriage that, Lord willing, we will both attain salvation.
I say all of this to you because I have seen it firsthand how much happier someone can be when they disregard the outside noise and move closer and closer to God’s will in their life. Isabelle’s dream of having a career might not have come true, but if you asked her today if she has any regrets on her decision, she would laugh out loud, without hesitation, and say, “Heck, No.”
https://www.ncregister.com/news/harrison-butker-speech-at-benedictine
The trolls are giving your book bad reviews a month before it comes out! How they fear you. Good luck in your worthy endeavor, Turley.
Jonathan: We are all familiar with the ethical conflicts of both Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. The latest one involves Alito. What’s that about?
There is a breaking story. On January 17, 2021, just before Pres. Biden’s inauguration, there was an incident at Alito’s home. It seems Martha-Ann Alito, got into a heated dispute with a neighbor who put up a “F—Trump” yard sign on his property. Mrs. Alito was so mad she put up their American flag–upside down. It remained there several days. The upside down flag has been a symbol for the Proud Boys and the “Stop the Steal” MAGA Republicans who refused to accept the results of the 2020 election.
In a statement, Alito used the “my dog ate my homework defense: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag. It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs”. Posting a sign like that about DJT was obviously “personally insulting” to the Justice. It’s hard to believe the Justice was not aware of the up side down flag his wife raised. End of controversy? Not quite.
Richard Painter, former WH ethics lawyer under George W., said about the incident: “I don’t know why we have a Supreme Court justice flying a flag upside down, weighing in on an election, why his wife would be doing that. His wife is well aware of the impartiality obligation of a federal judge. When the house is used this way, I’d be shocked that she would do that without talking about it with him first”.
Other legal experts on court ethics have also commented. Washington & Lee University law professor Jim Moliterno said: “A more blatant revelation of bias in a pending case [DJT’s case claiming presidential immunity] is hard to imagine. It was literally waving a banner that said, ‘I favor election-deniers'”. Moliterno also said Alito’s response “reveals his utter lack of understanding of basic concepts of judicial ethics”.
This incident only adds to what we know about Alito. He is a partisan supporter of DJT. He voted to uphold DJT’s right to be on the Colorado ballot. And Alito has refused to recuse himself in the pending case involving DJT’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Alito doesn’t care about judicial ethics. We pretty much know how Alito will come down in DJT’s latest claim. Perhaps, Jack Smith should ask Alito to recuse himself in the pending case. While it probably won’t succeed at least it will put Alito in an embarrassing position and force him to explain why he claims he didn’t know about the upside down flag. With this latest incident it’s no wonder Alito and Thomas are the principal reason the public has so little trust in SCOTUS!
Dennis:
Your monotonous ramblings spewing sheeeeit remind me of a tourist with IBS on vacation in Acapulco after eating an iguana street taco and washing it down with Mexican tap water.
Dennis – You say: “He voted to uphold DJT’s right to be on the Colorado ballot.” I guess you forgot about the other eight justices who also concluded that this fascist gambit violated the Constitution. I believe you supported it. (“A slam dunk”.)
When are you going to publish your book, in which you gainsay everything Professor Turley says in his?
Yes, but what did you think about the book???
FREEDOM OF SPEECH SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED
_______________________________________________________
The People ordained and established the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, in 1789.
No interpretation is required, necessary, or suitable.
Statutory and fundamental laws must be applied and enforced verbatim.
Freedom of speech is absolute, pervasive, and ubiquitous.
No individuals or courts have any power to modify or amend the Constitution, the process for which is prescribed in the very Constitution itself.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The Good Professor would do well to vigorously admonish the entirety of that branch.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
The Preamble
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I’m gonna put it under MyPillow.com and absorb it’s rich and deep thought provoking knowledge throughout the night,
to awaken in a new age of enlightenment. Then get my cup of coffee and sit upon on the porcelain throne to take my morning Constitution.
Ahhhh – I love the smell of fresh print in the morning …. ☺️
-GOT MATCHES- 🕯️
Maybe the 9th Amendment says it best. Any constitutional right or freedom can’t be exercised in a manner that infringes upon the constitutional rights of other people.
The 9th Amendment also recognizes “unnamed rights” are also protected since it’s impossible to list every right by name.
The 1st Amendment also has limits when it infringes upon other people’s rights and freedoms. This is the top duty of the Judicial Branch courts to draw those constitutional out-of-bounds or suggest a constitutional-amendment to correct those conflicts.
Destroying property or beating people up is not legitimate 1st Amendment speech.
THE “POUR-OVER” AMENDMENT
_____________________________________
The 9th Amendment provides and reserves all conceivable natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities to the People.
The 9th Amendment ensures that no conceivable natural and God-given rights, freedoms, privileges, and immunities are denied to the People.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I can’t wait. As for free speech, this Butker situation tells one all they need to know. Here is one for ya. https://shorturl.at/gYbmb
Repeal America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Right where the Founders placed it.
Jonathan: “FIRE”, a conservative group backed by right-wing billionaire Charles Koch, also has a very complimentary review of your forthcoming book. In its review FIRE repeats your frequent claim “Free speech is a human right, and the free expression of thought is at the very essence of being human”. The review ends with another of your themes: “The alliance of academic, media, and corporate interests with the government’s traditional wish to control speech has put us on an almost irresistible path toward censorship”. All of us on this blog are familiar with your frequent themes. Of course, the devil is always in the details of what constitutes “free expression”. There are two areas in particular that demonstrate an inconsistency in your approach to free speech: Book banning and university student protests.
As pointed out in many of my previous comments book banning in FL under Gov. DeSantis has become an epidemic. Hundreds of books with race or LGBTQ+ themes have been banned from school libraries in the state. These are echoes of Nazi Germany where books that did not reflect Nazi propaganda were banned and burned. What DeSantis has done is government “censorship” on an unprecedented level. Yet, you have yet to write a column criticizing book banning in FL as a violation of students’ right to read the books of their choice.
Then, the current wave of student protests over Israel’s genocidal war against the Palestinians is a subject of several of your columns. At Columbia you called on university administrators to crack down on mostly peaceful protesters–arrest and expel them. If free speech is a “human right” doesn’t that also apply to peaceful student protests? And what about what happened at UCLA? Masked people were allowed to attack and beat up the protesters in an encampment on campus while the police stood by. Were any of those anti-protesters arrested? Nope. The next day the police stormed and torn down the student encampment and arrested hundreds. Why did you remain silent in the face of that crack down on “free expression”?
If free speech is a “human right” you seem to apply two different standards–one for the overt racist Ann Coulter to speak on university campuses and another standard for those with whom you disagree. Can’t have it both ways!
Dennis/’Gigi’: Seeing as you’re so concerned with censorship,
why haven’t you also mentioned the even worse attempts,
as seen in the ‘Twitter Files’, of the Biden admin. working with
big tech and social media companies to stifle truth that doesn’t fit their narrative?
Which was also used to interfere with elections and as propaganda?
As long as it’s your team doing it, it’s alright with you?
Normalizing the perverse is not normal because perversion is not normal and if perversion is not normal it cannot be normalized because it is perverse.
DeSantis stopped the perverts from attempting to make the perverse normal which they cannot do because it is perverse and making the perverse normal is normally impossible…
Unless you are subjugated under the communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” and you are forced to make the perverse normal and do all kinds of other crazy things like read Dennis.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Normal – Perverse
Never the twain shall meet.
Now you get it, right, I’m right, aren’t I?
His Turley Envy is off the meter today.
He wants an audience but we all keep booing.
If a parent wants to provide one of these books to their child, they are available. The government has a right to determine what is appropriate in public schools. Please research the issue first. Thank you in advance.
I await its arrival at my front door! Look forward in particular to reading about the balance between free speech and legitimate limits: perjury, unsworn falsifications, defamation, fighting words, incitement, harassment, terroristic threats, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, fraudulent misrepresentation, et al. Too many civilians honestly believe that free speech means say anything, at any time, to or about anyone or anything, regardless of truth, effect or result, with absolutely no potential repercussions. (Yet some of those civilians, especially in the media, have no problem with cancel culture: say, or be alleged to have said, certain words, or make certain kinds of statements, and the speaker or alleged speaker is done for.)
Actually, the “civilians” who pretend all of those limits on speech that you delineate do not exist are far worse than those who believe free speech is an absolute right. The former group are the people who imagine they can use government force to restrict speech they don’t like and that will magically create a better society.
Those are the people I loathe and fear the most. As C.S. Lewis is reported to have said:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
russamgirl: At least we agree on one thing. There are “legitimate limits” on free speech–and it follows there some limits that are not legitimate. So here is a Q for you. Do you think Gov. DeSantis’s law banning hundreds of books from school libraries serves some “legitimate” state interest? If so, please explain.
No forward or reviews from Samuel Alito?
Yes there is a review but you would not understand it because it is upside down.
It’s Foreword, not Forward.
My wife and I have it preordered. Really looking forward to it! 😊😊
I am also. Will be ordering soon. I love this blog and the give and take and it is the epitome of what free speech is all about. You can severely disagree without screaming, make your points and listen to others. I learned long ago that no one has also all the answers, whether right, left or in the center. You can learn immense amounts by just listening and virtually nothing when you’re talking. I very much look forward to this book.
GEB: your line about listening is quite quotable. Bravo.
I look forward to the book as I also visit this site every day to see what topic Professor Turley is tackling that day. Turley’s take is almost always something I agree with and also very well thought out.
The proof of how great Turley and this column is can be shown by the people that claim to disagree with the Professor about everything and yet come here to comment many times each day. Dennis, I am looking your way you contrarian weirdo.
HullBobby,
That is Dennis’s deeply held jealously and envy of how accomplished, respected, and successful the good professor is.
If Dennis actually was a lawyer, his comments demonstrate what a poor lawyer he was.
A healthy culture of free speech depends upon open-mindedness to disagreement. However, if militant speech tactics are allowed (doxxing, anonymous threats of injury or death, public frauds intending to deceive, fomenting lawbreaking), that culture is ruined, people clam up, or voice only defensive-evasive, accusatory thinking.
I’ll be holding my breath for JT’s treatment of this key topic — how to preserve goodwill, trust and collaborative problem-solving in a public infospace.
Any book on free speech rights that doesn’t address militant tactics, and how far the 1st Amendment goes in protecting closed-minded, zealous intimidation tactics, is an evasion of the central issue. Without norms of civility, and understood ways of effectively enforcing them (not involving govt. censorship), the benefits to society of free speech are squandered.
Militancy and zealotry are the scourge of a culture that prizes freedom of thought. That’s what the current struggle is all about. Will the overconfident, boisterous, hyperaggressive be allowed to drown out the temperate, mannered, thoughtful and intellectually-modest? I wonder if JT is willing to face up to this in his book?
Jeez, I ordered this two months ago, stop the tease, let’s get going!
I pre-ordered my copy shortly after it was announced last November. I think that each copy is being hand-scribed by monks in an abbey somewhere in the Appenines.
Sure Turley’s book is great. It is curious that the two federal Attorneys General did absolutely nothing to end Bush’s covert blacklisting torture program – as their oath of office requires them to do.
Even today in 2024, Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland supports, funds and drives “Fusion Centers” (unconstitutional blacklisting centers) in every state that has violated the oath of office of each and every AG for over 20 years.
American citizens with clean criminal records and never indicted for any crime were ruined over more than 20 years by these Attorneys General being disloyal to their oath of office. Convicted real criminals were treated better than these innocent Americans. This program is pure evil.
Maybe omitting the commentary from these lawless AGs would give the book more credibility?
This particular “Anonymous” character can’t sleep knowing that guys that followed Osama are in prison.
Outstanding professor!
I look forward to hearing solutions, not just examples of the problem. If he can’t get us back on track, I don’t know who could.
I am looking forward to reading this timely book. Free speech is under attack. We need to value this right and defend it.
I look forward to it!