FYI review:
-No More Flags by Viet Thanh Nguyen (Stromberg v. California, 1931)
-Scottsboro, USA by Jacqueline Woodson (Powell v, Alabama, 1932, Powell v. Alabama, 1935)
-The Dirtiest, Most Indecent, Obscene Thing Ever Written by Michael Chabon (United States v. One Book Called 'Ulysses,' 1933)
-The Brother-in-Law by Ann Patchett (Edwards v. California, 1941)
-Victory Formation by Brit Bennett (West Virgina State Board of Education v. Barnette, 1943, Amicus)
The Nail by Steven Okazaki (Korematsu v. United States, 1944)
-A Short Essay About Shorts by Daniel Handler (Hannegan v. Esquire, 1946, Amicus)
-They Talk Like That by Geraldine Brooks (Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949, Amicus)
-Rocket City by Yaa Gyasi (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, Amicus)
-One Will Be Provided for You by Sergio De La Pava (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963, Amicus)
-Legal Counsel at the Moment Most Crucial by Dave Eggers (Escobedo v. Illinois, 1964)
-How the First Amendment Finally Got Its Wing by Timothy Egan (New York Times v. Sullivan, 1964, Amicus)
-Your Mail Belongs to Us by Yiyun Li (Lamont v. Postmaster General, 1965, Amicus)
-Protection by Meg Wolitzer (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Amicus)
-Ernesto's Prayer by Hector Tobar (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966, Amicus)
-Loving by Aleksandar Hemon (Loving v. Virginia, 1967)
-The Black Armband by Elizabeth Strout (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969)
-Crowd Work by Andrian Nicole LeBlance (Gregory v. City of Chicago, 1969)
-The Right to Offend by Rabih Alameddine (Street v. New York, 1969)
-On Jews, Blacks, the KKK, and Freedom of Speech by Moriel Rothman-Zecher (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)
-Disturbing the War by Jonathan Lethem (Cohen v. California, 1971)
-Secrets and Lies by Salman Rushdie (New York Times v. United States, 1971)
-The Ambivalent Activist, Jane Roe by Lauren Groff (Roe v. Wade, 1973; Doe v. Bolton, 1973)
-A Nondangerous Person by Ayelet Waldman (O'Connor v. Donaldson, 1975)
-Father Sues for 'Mother's Benefits' by Jennifer Egan (Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 1975)
-Spending Money Isn't Speech (How the ACLU Ruined Campaign Finance Laws) by Scott Turow (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976)
-Bob Jones Builds a Wall by Morgan Parker (Bob Jones University v. United States, 1983)
-Some Gods Are Better Than Others by Victor LaValle (Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 1993)
-Queer, Irish, Marching by Michael Cunningham (Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Bost, 1995)
-"Because Girls Can read as Well as Boys," On Protecting the Children by Neil Gaiman (Reno v ACLU, 1997, Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2004)
-We Gather by Jesmyn Ward (City of Chicago v. Morales, 1999)
-Stateside Statelessness by Moses Sumney (Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001, Amicus)
-The Way the Law Leads Us by George Saunders (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, Amicus)
-Live from the Bedroom, The Culture War by Marlon James (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003)
-Habeas, Guantanamo, and the Forever War by William Finnegan (Rasul v. Bush, 2004)
-Who's Your Villain? by Anthony Doerr (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005)
-You've Given Me a Lot to Think About by Charlie Jane Anders (Schroer v. Billington, 2008)
-Relative Sovereignty: A Brief History of Indigenous Family Separation in the United States by Brenda J. Child (Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 2013)
-We Love You, Edie Windsor by Andrew Sean Greer (United States v. Windsor, 2013)
-Surveillance Capitalism Versus Indigenous Led Protect by Louise Erdrich (ACLU v. United States Department of Defense, et. al., 2018) ( )

Excellent essays on important subjects. ( )

In their introduction, editors Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman write, “To understand the vital role that the ACLU plays in American society requires a nuanced understanding of the absolute value of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from unwanted search and seizure, of the right to due process and equal justice under the law, even – again, especially – when those rights protect people we find abhorrent or speech that offends us” (pg. xv). The book itself covers forty different cases presented in chronological order, from Stromberg v. California (1931) through ACLU v. United States Department of Defense, et al. (2018). Some authors, like Jacqueline Woodson on Powell v. Alabama (1932) and Patterson v. Alabama (1935) or Neil Gaiman on Reno v. ACLU (1997) and Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004), examine similar cases to show how rulings changed, were refined, or upheld. What emerges is a careful study of jurisprudence in defense of civil liberties over the last century. Fight of the Century is a necessary primer for anyone studying civil liberties.

Co-editor Michael Chabon writes the entry on United States v. One Book Called ‘Ulysses’, giving the background, “Over the previous sixty years the Supreme Court had consistently upheld the constitutionality of the federal Comstock Act, which banned obscene speech. The New York State antipornography laws were broad, loose, and vaguely worded. And the standard used to determine whether speech was obscene, the Hicklin test, appeared to be invincible” (pg. 17). Chabon explains that the danger of the Hicklin test was that “it could be applied piecemeal. The government had only to prove the obscenity of part of a book in order to ban it entirely. There was no obligation to consider context or the interpretations of a work as a whole” (pg. 17). Under Judge Woolsey’s ruling, however, “By definition, a work of literature could not be obscene, could not be pornographic, could not corrupt and deprave, could never be intended to arouse a reader, even if certain passages in said work dealt with sexual activity and bodily functions in plain, even vulgar terms” (pg. 23). Later, the editors summarize Hannegan v. Esquire (1946), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the postmaster general could not “serve as the arbiter of obscenity” such as when he attempted to revoke Esquire’s second-class postage status due to his objection to some images he felt were obscene (pg. 40).

Neil Gaiman discusses the role of telecommunications technology on censorship laws, specifically focusing on Reno v. ACLU (1997) and Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004). He writes of the background to the former, “Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, better known as the Communications Decency Act (CDA). It was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996 and attempted to target indecency and obscenity on the Internet by making it a crime punishable by two years in jail, a $250,000 fine, or both, to engage in speech that was ‘indecent’ or ‘patently offensive,’ if that speech could be viewed by a minor” (pg. 200). While the Court struck down the law 7-2, Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act in 1998 to replace it. This had its own problems, including the fact that its use of the word “simulated” provided too much grounds for debate as did its reliance on the generalized “community standards” (pg. 201). Gaiman discusses how the Court decided Ashcroft v. ACLU partly due to its overreach and faulty understanding of technology, but also writes, “The decisions in both Reno and Ashcroft make explicit reference to the rights of adults, the former in part decided on the grounds that the CDA was an abridgement of the First Amendment because it didn’t allow parents to decide what material was acceptable for their children” (pg. 203). Gaiman concludes with a plea to understand that part of a parent’s responsibility is to protect their children, but it is also to help them grow rather than by restricting their access to material that will help them to do so.

Due to my current research, the essays most of interest to me were those related to censorship and obscenity case law, but the others offered valuable insight into ACLU’s activism. In many ways, Chabon and Waldman’s work recalls Peter Irons’ A People’s History of the Supreme Court and, like that work, is a necessary guide to American jurisprudence and civil liberties. An essential read for all studying the social sciences. ( )

This is a book I'll be coming back to again and again, both for my own reading and for use in courses I teach. It covers a huge range of civil rights cases, presenting them clearly and offering succinct, engaging reflections on them. This is the kind of writing, involving both research and personal reflection, that I encourage my students to do. If things go as I plan, I will use this as a class text for the first time next winter. ( )