....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...

Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.

This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. And, this is a good place to give my own theory of what made Jefferson tick, though it's probably way off base...he was a man not bothered by contradictions. Mr. Dershowitz defended the idiots in Skokie; it bothered him [still does], but he made himself do the right thing; [I think] Jefferson would have done the same, and never worried about it a bit. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!

....and that's a hell of a thing for a conservative Republican to say. I've always liked his style, even when I disagree. This short, but profoundly great, book gives his views of the First Amendment, filtered thru the metaphorical lens of a short letter written by Mr. Jefferson in 1801. Despite profound differences, Mr. Dershowitz and I share some things in common: [1] We are both pack-rats [2] We both revere Thomas Jefferson [3] We both love America. But then, he's a Red Sox fan, and I'm a Yankee fan......and, while we agree about the First Amendment, I suspect that we might part company over the Second...

Alan Dershowitz found the letter in question in a rare book store a couple of years ago...it deals with Mr. Jefferson's disagreement with the views of Reverend Stanley Griswold, who advocated limitation on the freedom of speech. Jefferson decried limits, prefering to await "the first overt act". Well and good, but Jefferson did not face weapons of mass destruction [though he did have to deal with Islamic criminals]. The book deals point by point with Mr. Jefferson's arguments, with Dershowitz playing "Devil's Advocate". Dershowitz then branches into specific examples of how Jefferson dealt with problems in his own day. [I may add one slight point of disagreement; Dershowitz states that the Aaron Burr treason case of 1807 brings no credit to Jefferson...well, neither was it John Marshall's shining moment...Burr should probably have been acquitted on the merits, but Marshall still ran it as a rigged trial for political purposes]. He ends with his own views of the First Amendment...no limitation of free speech by the government. Period. I am fairly sure he would support me in the arguments I had with school authorities over my son's right to wear a Confederate flag T-shirt {I won}. But, nobody questions my Confederate flag tie at work...strange.

This is one of the greatest books I have ever read. EVER. It reveals a human side of both Jefferson and Dershowitz that is engaging. Brilliant people are still people. If you want to spend an afternoon really understanding the First Amendment, this book is for you. I can't recommend it highly enough!!!!

Alan Dershowitz and Thomas Jefferson were collectors. Dershowitz, inter alia, collects antiquities. He loves objects with aesthetic and historical significance. Dershowitz travels to flea markets and book stores seeking treasure. Much of the focus of his legal activities has centered on the line between speech and act.

The greatest acquisition of the author's career as a collector came from the Argosy Bookstore. It is a Jefferson letter about freedom of religion, (and of speech and ideas). The letter had been passed down through generations of the Boardman family who reside in New Milford, Connecticut. The historian Charles Beard learned of the letter's existence in 1926 and quoted from it. In turn, the sentence appeared in several important legal decisions.

The letter was sold to the Argosy in 2006. Alan Dershowitz's daughter believes he has become obsessed with Jefferson. (He has now bought a number of books and souvenirs pertaining to Jefferson.) Through his letters a person is able to get into Jefferson's head the author asserts. John Adams hoped that Jefferson's letters would be published. Jefferson pardoned persons convicted of violations of the Alien and Sedition Acts when he became President.

This book is of great interest to lawyers and to historians of ideas.

Saturday Night:
I received Finding Jefferson as a gift today from my sister-in-law Linda. Thank you Linda, I loved it. I read the book today, I thought about it today, and I wrote these comments today.
I have always thought of myself as a Free-Speech Absolutist. I still want to call myself that but here are my thoughts - inspired by Jefferson and Dershowitz.
1) An anonymous man on a soapbox in the middle of a public park is the perfect symbol of what "free speech" seems to suggest. Why? Because, no matter what he says, people who choose to listen to him are under no obligation to believe him or to be swayed by him. They are as free to listen as he is to speak. In any event, he will most likely be thought a crackpot for speaking in public to a crowd that may or may not form.
On the other hand, the speech of your military superior, your gang leader, or your boss at work is not JUST speech. The relationship between unequals in a formal hierarchy is not just speech. Coercion is a necessary part of this kind of speech, the result of discourse among unequals. If your CO or your boss tells you what to do, your refusal to obey may have serious consequences. For example, a neo-Nazi speaking in front of a crowd of onlookers who are totally free to listen or not is exercising his right to free-speech, even if he advocates mayhem. On the other hand, the same speaker speaking to his lieutenants and his subordinates and advocating mayhem is conspiring to commit crimes and ought (perhaps) to be accountable even before the commission of any crimes. In sum, speech between unrelated equals is always free and ought always to be protected; speech between members of a group with a pecking order may be coercive and ought not to be entitled to protection as free speech. (vs. Jefferson & Dershowitz)
2) Not all speech consists of IDEAS. a) Some speech is opinion or taste, which of right ought always to be free. b) Some speech is factual, or not. PERHAPS the propagation of some kinds of untruths among a closed group ought to be actionable: should society allow the teaching of blatant falsehoods? Should the teaching of 2+2=5 be allowed to be taught in a religious school? Should the denial of the Holocaust be permitted under the law? I don't have an answer to this, but it is worth examination. Teaching falsehoods as the truth is not the same as propagating an idea or an opinion or a political preference. c) Some speech is directive: do this! Is the command of your leader merely a case of "self-expression"? I think not. d) And some speech, masquerading as IDEA, is just emotional vomit. Again, the fellow on the soapbox in a park ought to be free to tell lies and to urge insurrection; the leader of a gang or a religious group perhaps ought to be constrained not to tell utter falsehoods or urge insurrection to his ignorant followers. In other words, directive speech from a superior to a subordinate ought not to be protected, because it is not really speech at all.
3) Religious speech ought always to be free (PERHAPS excepting outright falsehoods); but speech turned into action is no longer speech. The fact that much religious speech is ridiculous is no reason to deny it protection.
4) Imams directing their obedient flock to kill the infidels are conspiring to incite to murder or treason. When your spiritual leader tells you what to do, you exercise your freedom to refuse to do it on pain of eternal damnation. This is the same as being told what to do by your CO or your boss, but more so. It is not free speech because the speaker's listeners are not free to ignore it; it ought not to be protected, as it is NOT JUST speech. When a speaker thinks his words are law, his speech is not just speech. Many Catholics are pro-choice, despite the Pope and their own priest. When listeners are truly free to disobey, speakers ought to be free to say what they will. (vs. Dershowitz & Jefferson)
5) The free marketplace of ideas is just as free as the economic marketplace is free. Neither is free! There are areas in this country where all the news is filtered by one corporate owner with a significant political agenda to push. Or many big owners with similar agendas. Not to mention the fact that many Americans are so closed-minded that alternative ideas will not be listened to and cannot be heard. The speech of such monopolistic speakers must be seen not as free as in a market of multiple viewpoints. In other words, some kind of regulation is called for in this case. (vs. Jefferson)
6) It seems to me that Islam has real cause to be angry with the West. Just as black and red men have real cause to be upset with white European Americans. We should sit down and air our grievances openly. Well, no, we should sit down and listen to them air their grievances with us; WE should just shut up and listen for a change. However, insulting Muhammad is within our most narrow definition of protected speech; the freedom to insult the Prophet is protected, and that freedom is not negotiable. Neither is a new Muslim Empire spread by force negotiable. But we would do well to listen. For a change.