Rudanko, Juhani. The Forging of Freedom of Speech.

• Author: Hoff, Samuel B.
• Position: Book Review

Rudanko, Juhani. The Forging of Freedom of Speech. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2003. 148 pp. Paper, $27.00.

According to Juhani Rudanko, this book "explores important aspects of a formative stage in the historical process that was a prerequisite to, and eventually resulted in, the establishment of freedom of expression as a constitutionally protected legal right in the United States" (p. 1). Tapping informal logic, fallacy theory, and the use of rhetorical questions, he examines government documents, laws, and congressional debates in order to clarify the nature of past events and improve theory.

After outlining the sequence of the text in the Introduction, Chapter 2 delineates landmarks in the history of freedom of expression. These include the English Bill of Rights (1689); the Virginia Declaration of Rights and Constitution (1776); the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention (1787); the Virginia Convention called to debate ratification of the Constitution (1788); the Bill of Rights, proposed in 1789 and ratified two years later; the Alien and Sedition Acts (1798); the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868; and, the U.S. Supreme Court's "Sanford dictum" contained in the Gitlow v. New York opinion (268 U.S. 652 (1925)) that compelled state governments to recognize their citizens' freedom of speech thereinafter. The author notes that differences in political culture have led to more openness, accountability, and restrictions on the power of government in the United States than in most European nations.

Chapter 3 critiques the reasons offered by members of the Federalist faction from 1787 until 1789 to explain why, in their opinion, the Constitution should not contain a bill of rights. Rudanko identifies several informal fallacies which are used to diminish support for a bill of rights. These fallacies--arguments which are psychologically persuasive but logically incorrect--must be considered according to the context and purpose for which they are employed. In opposing a bill of rights at the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention in November 1787, James Wilson took a position that may be classified as the fallacy of "ad consequentiam": arguing that a proposition is false on the grounds that it will lead to a negative outcome. (1) Once the Bill of Rights was proposed in the House of Representatives, Congressman James Jackson's strategy of asking for a postponement as a means of subverting a bill of rights...