Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America is a reprint of Aryeh Neier's valuable book Defending My Enemy with an additional chapter addressing more recent issues and a nice Afterword by Nadine Strossen.

I read the original book for the first time in the mid-80s and a couple of times since, including once for a class I took. Each reading served two main purposes for me. First was simply to regain an understanding of the idea of free speech, so primarily an intellectual refresher. The second and more valuable purpose was making me check myself when tempted to start wanting to restrict free speech. This more reactive and emotional reason is one most of us have to grapple with from time to time, especially in today's communication, or miscommunication, environment.

If you're not familiar with the Skokie case, all I'll say is that Neier defended the right of Nazi's to march and speak in Skokie. Beyond that, I think you should read this account, it provides the details that make this a landmark case and a brief summary from me might tempt some readers to skip the book, and this is far too important a book to skip.

The chapter that covers more recent events (it is one chapter, not several, but does not skimp on the important details) offers perspective that will do most of us a lot of good and also slightly modifies the original stance about when to not defend free speech (it has to do with the threat of violence).

While much of Strossen's Afterword serves as a synopsis of the original book, there personal examples she cites help to make the points more evident. I think the one that stood out for me was her companion example that aligns with Neier's example of why to defend free speech. Where Neier very effectively, especially in relation to the case he was writing about, uses the example of defending Nazis now so that Jews will also have the freedom to speak Strossen uses Norton's defense of George Wallace speaking in NYC making it possible for H Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael to speak in the south. I think including an example with specific people during a specific time in our history is very effective.

I would highly recommend this to everybody, no exceptions. Maybe it will change your stance if you want to shut down some free speech, maybe it will bring you back to where your ethics actually are rather than away from them (as it does for me), or maybe it will simply give you the words and examples to better argue your case for free speech.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

This reprint is timely, important, and powerful. The subject matter couldn't be more poignant, nor could it mean more for the younger generations attempting to reconcile their rights as Americans in an era where nothing is promised and anything could be stripped from them. Everyone should read this book.

Is Free Speech Still Free?
Aryeh Neier, Defending My Enemy: Skokie and the Legacy of Free Speech in America (New York: The New Press, September 23, 2025). Softcover: $17.99. 186pp. ISBN: 978-1-62097-991-4.
****
“A new edition of the most important free speech book of the past halfcentury, with a new essay by the author on the ensuing fifty years of First Amendment controversies. When Nazis wanted to express their right to free speech in 1977 by marching through Skokie, Illinois—a town with a large population of Holocaust survivors—Aryeh Neier, then the national director of the ACLU and himself a Holocaust survivor—came to the Nazis’ defense. Explaining what many saw as a despicable bridge too far for the First Amendment, Neier spelled out his thoughts about free speech in his 1979 book Defending My Enemy. Now, nearly fifty years later, Neier revisits the topic of free speech in a volume that includes his original essay along with an extended new piece addressing some of the most controversial free speech issues of the past halfcentury. Touching on hotbutton First Amendment topics currently in play, the second half of the book includes First Amendment analysis of the ‘Unite the Right’ march in Charlotteville, campus protest over the Israel/Gaza war, book banning, trigger warnings, rightwing hate speech, the heckler’s veto, and the recent attempts by public figures including Donald Trump to overturn the longstanding Sullivan v. The New York Times precedent shielding the media from libel claims…’”
I looked for the references to proposed edits to Sullivan first: apparently two Supreme Court justices have been philosophizing about ending press-freedom, after Trump has been winning cases such as the $15 million settlement over Stephanopoulos stating what he was found guilty of as “rape” as opposed to “sexual abuse”. Trump also since won a case against the editing of his competitor’s interview, and other absurd cases that are “inconceivable”, if these cases went through court under Sullivan rules. These are troubling cases indeed.
As a publisher, I have had a policy of accepting anything within reason under the assumption that writers have a write to state whatever they believe in. There should not be barriers based on what a publisher believes that block contradictory content from breaking into print. If an idea is erroneous, untrue, or malicious; it would logically be rejected by readers or critics. It is important to allow even evil ideas to be voiced because these are confessions of wrongdoing, or wrong-thinking. Knowing what bad things or ideas people are up to is partly what the press is for, as opposed to merely repeating what is known to be good and right.
Banning books such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin (“most widely banned book”) has historically tended to increase sales for whatever is being banned because readers want access to whatever somebody claims they should not have access to.
On the other hand, banning “10,046” books at the school-level does not help sales, and indeed blocks access. Theoretically banning a book without the power to enforce it is different from blocking a book from being taught, or purchased by one of the main book-buyers. Such bans are meant to impact what is allowed into print because publishing is a for-profit business.
On the other hand, apparently inciting-violence is print has been legal since Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, as long as it is not likely to “imminently… take place”. This kind of means that if the public’s discontent with the other violations of freedom hit an extreme-point, the only legally-allowed path might be storming DC, since a “coup” has been proven to be legal based on Trump’s pardoning of January 6 rebels (158).
It is important for me to keep up with research of the type provided in this book, since I should know what’s legal in-print as a professional publisher, and a returning-academic. Others in these fields would also benefit from reading through relevant sections for their situations, or the whole book to understand the broad perspective. Though this book could have been improved be re-organizing it in some structure that allowed researchers interested in specific topics to find what they are looking for. Chapter titles such as “Risks of Freedom” do not clarify what they contain, and there are no section-headings to aid this. Topics kind of leap from paragraph to paragraph, without clear transitions, or an identifiable organizational structure. The legal question of what is legal in terms of speech is one that requires precisely-tailored knowledge.
--Pennsylvania Literary Journal: https://anaphoraliterary.com/journals/plj/plj-excerpts/book-reviews-summer-2025/

*Defending My Enemy* remains one of the most compelling and challenging defenses of free speech I’ve ever read—made even more urgent by Aryeh Neier’s timely new essay. His unwavering commitment to the First Amendment, even in the most morally fraught circumstances, forces readers to confront the uncomfortable boundaries of principle in a polarized era. Neier’s reflections are clear-eyed, courageous, and deeply thought-provoking, especially as today’s speech battles take on new and complex forms. With the rise of censorship campaigns, campus speech wars, and legal threats to press freedom, this updated edition couldn’t feel more relevant. It’s a sobering but essential read for anyone who still believes the First Amendment is worth defending—even when it's hardest.