[Talking about the written word, Bill Moyers' Poets House segment was charming, especially the too cute mom/daughter recitation.]
One can be overwhelmed with material given the range of people recommending books or even SSRN downloadable essays. For instance, Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert provide a public service besides their satire on politics and Colbert's continual effort of self-promotion: their guests run the gambit from celebrities to political figures (including in media) to authors. I'm sure their already is somewhere a book club based on their guests. It's a bit like Charlie Rose, but they in fact tend to speak less than the guests during the segments.
Blogs, of course, are a major source of these recommendations. And, "With interlibrary loan, virtually any book, say, is effectively made available to a library’s patrons."* Well, lots of them. Plus, DVDs and other stuff really. But, hey, the government shouldn't spend money on something like health care. Come on. SPEECH OUT OF DOORS: PRESERVING FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERTIES IN PUBLIC PLACES by Timothy Zick was one such recommendation, in fact by the person to which the book is dedicated. See here for a review. The book highlights the value of public speech, for self-expression and so forth, particularly for when the location is important for the expression itself including to target those who rather not listen to the message in question.
The review has mild complaints, but they are of the "uh ..." kind that flag my "but, that doesn't follow" sensors. For instance:
He argues that pervasive surveillance has a First Amendment chilling effect, which suggests that the First Amendment guarantees a right to anonymous use of public space. The courts will not go that far, nor would I. If it is legitimate to record my family standing outside a landmark building (as tourists all over the world are wont to do), it seems equally legitimate to record police behavior or misbehavior in that place. Would government officials, including police, have fewer rights to record in that space?
Zick realizes that public space cannot be completely anonymous. He is upset about the increasingly invasive public surveillance all the same, including technology that one day -- like a show now on the air -- will allow facial recognition software to determine in some real sense what the person is thinking. The book encourages people -- as they do -- to record police misbehavior. And, yes, government officials with their citywide cameras and so forth are different from the general public in this regard. Current policy (and some court orders) also treats them differently in regard to such things as involvement in and surveillance of peaceful opposition groups and so forth.
The book can be enjoyed by the general reader though at times its use of terms like "embodied speech" comes off as sounding a bit too graduate school-like. Nice use of photos and same page footnotes too. Overall, it puts forth a warning -- one as much of a concern of abortion as war protestors -- of the growing limits (legal or otherwise) on public speech and protest that should be respected by legislators, judges, and the general public. It is one of those books where you need not share all its concerns or policy suggestions without respecting its overall message, one that can still be put into practice in any number of ways.
Okay, so now that Jane Goodall book mentioned on the Jon Stewart show looks good ...
---
* One lesser reported problem I saw in the majority opinion here was the in passing rejection of the idea that the Internet is a type of public forum, in part because it is not "traditional." The book discusses how absurd this is, part of charm being a concern for real life application of the spirit of the First Amendment over simplistic formalistic opinions.
We basically are stuck with making the best of a bad situation here (precedents allow much troubling regulation though it does not compel change, state court alternatives or policies that deal with the concerns raised) though in this case the main opinion only was a plurality, the concurring and dissenting justices more supportive of broader public fora rules.
I discuss the real life effects of the particular practice at issue in the case here.