Thought That We Hate

Anthony Lewis has always held his head high where it has concerned the American Judiciary – Lewis’ praise for the American judiciary is arguably sensible and thorough in its worthy aspect. Not only does he excel as a reporter and a columnist at the New York Times, but where it concerns his authorship he has been equally exceptional in his craft. In his latest book, “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate” Lewis has the same heroic view of the American Judiciary to portray and he does it with his usual flair, with his typical – subtle, but very much inherent – admiration for the Judiciary, and for everything that he stands for. Similar to his incomparable, thorough, and critical account of the 1963 Supreme Court Case, Lewis does not lag in sending
his readers into a state of instant admiration and awe where it concerns his boldness and his critical insight. One would think that Lewis has got the right sort of vision for the coverage of these sort of cases and for the inspection of these sort of issues – but it would be not incorrect to state that Lewis has, in fact, not just the right sight, but the most tenacious insight into these matters – there are few other writers who can truly parallel him in the performance of this feat. Lewis has once more shown his true mastery and maturation of thought.
In his latest book, “Freedom for the Thought That We Hate,” Lewis takes his readers and his critics alike on a revisionary journey through the first amendment.
The subjects of concern are the brave judges belonging to the 20th Century who were the pillars that laid the foundation of the First Amendment that called for what has widely become lingo – freedom of speech – but which has also become largely distorted and diluted in its meaning, in its context, and in its essence. Lewis reminds us what this amendment in the Constitution truly entails – the restriction laid on the government, the banning of offensive speech on the government’s part, is the focal point of the argument that Lewis puts before his readers. His advocacy for the first amendment and his reminder comes at a likely time for reminders, when the campaigns elections are in full swing, and when the State has been suddenly taken as if by a thunderous storm of hate speech, offensive speech, and what is tantamount to straight up vulgarity. Lewis reminds his audiences and jogs our memories back to the draft in the Constitution that deal so strictly with the issue of offensive speech. A timely judgment on Lewis’ part, this kernel of concentrated thought hits the mark with acute precision and with an iron fist, and puts many a cheek to the red blush of shame, and guilt, and
embarrassment.
But that is not all that Lewis is concerned with in his book. His central focus is more on the unparalleled bravery, the matchless courage, and the supreme maturity of thought that perpetuates the nation’s judiciary – for, as Lewis reminds his audiences – it was on part of the judiciary of the 20th Century, that the First Amendment transformed from fiction to reality; and it has been on part of the judiciary of America that the American society has witnessed such an exuberance of social equality, and social decency since the dark epochs of once upon a time. Lewis does not falter in his judgment and neither vacillates in his opinion – he puts the judiciary of America on a high pedestal as they well deserve for bringing the country to where it is, to its position of social equality and political politesse as it is today. When he is sponsoring the notion that the judiciary of America does not even boggle when dealing with the government that runs the world, it becomes evident that Lewis is in no mood to shillyshally with the pillars of the state – going on a notch, he further claims it a “truth” that the country is what it is today on grounds of “bold judicial decisions.”
Some might take his account as a criticism and a straight out mockery of the government – but that is a gross exaggeration of interpretation and a wrongful dealing of the perspective that Lewis is letting his audiences borrow. His intent is not to demean one institution but rather to applaud another – he gives credit where it is due, where it is so seldom given to the judiciary of America. Seldom are the country’s judges hailed for their contributions to the country and Lewis has taken it upon himself, it seems, to perform the task that was long overdue. Lewis does not hail the country’s judges simply as judges of cases in court, not simply as men of legal authorization who sit in high chairs and wigs giving out decisions – but as the protectors and the saviors of the First Amendment. Lewis seems to imply that it is the American judiciary that has upheld, truly, the quintessence of the First Amendment and that without them, it would most probably perish. For it lies upon the shoulders of the judiciary, the burden of taking the offenders to the task, and the burden of acquitting the innocent, and the burden of providing justice to the victims, and most importantly, the burden of safeguarding the soul of free speech.
The book then goes on to pick up on the issue of free speech – providing the readers with a definitive delineation of what really pertains to the term of free speech.
Lewis does not offer us a sketch of the development of the First Amendment – having already done that in an earlier book called “Make No Law” – but what he does is to build upon the various instances revolving around the issue of free speech that has occurred in the country. Weaving through a network of polemics and controversies regarding hate speech and offensive speech, Lewis pays tribute to the judiciary of the country for standing strong against the potential destruction of the First Amendment. Lewis has once more shown his mettle and his mastery – he is truly a great thinker of his
time.