What do you think?
Rate this book
Free Speech And Why It Matters
Towards the end of the twentieth century, those who advocated what became known as 'Political Correctness' rightly identified the ways in which marginalised groups were often disparaged in everyday speech. Casual expressions of homophobia, racism and sexism went from being commonplace to being rejected by the vast majority of the public over the course of just two decades.
Since then, the victories of Political Correctness have formed the basis for a new intolerant mindset, one that seeks to move beyond simply reassessing the social contract of shared discourse to actively policing speech that is deemed offensive or controversial. Rather than confront bad ideas through discussion, it has now become common to intimidate one's detractors into silence through 'cancel culture', a ritual of public humiliation and boycotting which can often lead to the target losing his or her means of income.
Free Speech is a defence of our right to express ourselves as we see fit, and takes the form of a letter to those who are unpersuaded. Taking on board legitimate concerns about how speech can be harmful, Andrew Doyle argues that the alternative - an authoritarian world in which our freedoms are surrendered to those in power - has far worse consequences.
Since then, the victories of Political Correctness have formed the basis for a new intolerant mindset, one that seeks to move beyond simply reassessing the social contract of shared discourse to actively policing speech that is deemed offensive or controversial. Rather than confront bad ideas through discussion, it has now become common to intimidate one's detractors into silence through 'cancel culture', a ritual of public humiliation and boycotting which can often lead to the target losing his or her means of income.
Free Speech is a defence of our right to express ourselves as we see fit, and takes the form of a letter to those who are unpersuaded. Taking on board legitimate concerns about how speech can be harmful, Andrew Doyle argues that the alternative - an authoritarian world in which our freedoms are surrendered to those in power - has far worse consequences.
128 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 25, 2021
160 people are currently reading
2553 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews
February 26, 2021
When I pick up a book about the free speech, I'm never sure what I'm going to get. I'll either get well-thought arguments from authors like Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff or books with weak arguments that seem like a cash grab from authors like Dave Rubin and Gad Saad. So, when I read this new book from Andrew Doyle, I was pleasantly surprised in the best way. By far, this is one of the better books on the subject, and I really enjoyed it. It's a short read, but it packs a lot of power.
In 2019, I was cancelled and had hundreds of thousands of strangers on the internet coming after me, so this is a topic that I'm interested in. I'm often conflicted because I'm quite liberal, and free speech is typically associated with the Right. When an author like Andrew Doyle comes around and is able to maturely discuss how there are awful people out there like Nazi's, but we need better conversations around free speech, I respect it. If you're interested in this subject as well, you should really grab a copy of this book.
In 2019, I was cancelled and had hundreds of thousands of strangers on the internet coming after me, so this is a topic that I'm interested in. I'm often conflicted because I'm quite liberal, and free speech is typically associated with the Right. When an author like Andrew Doyle comes around and is able to maturely discuss how there are awful people out there like Nazi's, but we need better conversations around free speech, I respect it. If you're interested in this subject as well, you should really grab a copy of this book.
March 4, 2021
I stumbled across Andrew Doyle’s Twitter this week to find him plagued with criticism by people yet to read his book, Free Speech. Paul Embery suffered the same fate when he released his book, Despised, late last year. The authoritarian left does not take criticism well, that is axiomatic. However, they particularly object when the criticism comes from those also on the left, of which Doyle most certainly is. Though you wouldn’t know reading his book. Where the broken political wings paradigm is barely mentioned. This is almost certainly deliberate (we’ll get to that later).
The criticism that Doyle received (again, by those yet to read his book), is that it was one for the echo chamber, as @RobeyWanKenobi demonstrated “this book is an obvious echo chamber. Anyone buying it already agrees with it”. This claim couldn’t be further from the truth. Of course, many free-speech activists, including myself, will be drawn to this book. But it struck me when reading that we were not the intended audience. You see, far from being a polemic against the authoritarian left, as one might expect, Doyle attempts to reason and offer an olive branch to those who are guilty of calling for the state to intervene and define the parameters of free speech.
The book is a concise, 100-page account, consisting of 18 short chapters. Doyle presents contemporary examples of state overreach in regards to speech. In his opening chapter, “We need to check your thinking”, taken from the infamous case of retired police officer Harry Miller, who after sharing a supposedly offensive poem on social media, had a visit from the police. The police told Miller that whilst he had not committed a crime, the police “wanted to check his thinking”, or so they said. Whilst Doyle does not go as far to say that free speech is being curtailed, and recoils from such “hyperbole”, Doyle does state that “over the past decade many people have detected minor changes in our culture, a kind of piecemeal reconfiguration at odds with our hard-won rights to personal autonomy”. Doyle finishes the first chapter with the following passage, directly addressing those who hold an antithetical view on free speech, testament to the good faith discussion Doyle seeks to hold,
“I start from the proposition that free speech is nothing less than the keystone of our civilisation. You may have reservations about this view. You may believe that unlimited speech enables the worst elements of us to commit harm. There is much to be said in favour of this perspective, although I hope to show you that a society that abandons freedom of expression risks exacerbating the very problems about which you are rightly concerned”
Doyle returns to two arguments in his prose. First, in seeking to censor speech “we risk setting a precedent that the powerful will expose”.
Doyle continues with this notion “Many, if not most, are willing to sacrifice their freedom of speech and independent thought for the consolations of certitude. It is in the interest of the powerful to encourage this kind of docility”.
This is of course true. I have always found it queer that those who are in favour of state control over speech, are the ones who often claim not only the ubiquity of racism in society, but that racism has also infiltrated the British Government. Why on earth, therefore, would you want said Government to increase their power, regulate and compel speech? Whilst discussing the First Amendment in the chapter, Then and Now, Doyle states “they (the Founding Fathers) understood that free speech for all is the best defence against totalitarianism”
Doyle continues this theme in his penultimate chapter, Hate Speech, where he says, “The price we pay for a free society is that bad people will say bad things. We tolerate this, not because we approve of the content of their speech, but because once we have compromised on the principle of free speech, we clear the pathway for future tyrants”.
The second point which Doyle returns to, in attempts to convince his opponents; once laws and regulations are passed, they will eventually be used as a tool against those who seek to censor, as much as everyone else. Doyle uses the example of the Labour Party’s rush to pass laws in the backdrop of the Oswald Mosley led riots in the 1930s, which would prevent his blackshirts from mobilising. Doyle explains that the law in question was later used by the Thatcher government against protesting miners in the 1980s.
In the past decade, free speech has been framed as left vs right debate. The decision of the left to allow themselves to be placed on the side opposed to civil liberty is a stupidity words cannot describe. It is perverse when one considers the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Party are a movement with a proud history of standing up for liberty. The Idiosyncratic former Labour Leader, Michael Foot, who is often unfairly maligned by history, gave a rousing speech in the commons in the 1950s when the government organised a samizdat against the Daily Worker publication. The Labour Party, who’s modus operandi should be to challenge power for those without. Free speech is the mechanism for challenging power and changing orthodoxies. Whilst opponents of free speech will claim that at its worst, it can severely offend the less powerful, but also be aware, without free speech, homosexuals, non-whites and other minority groups would not have the freedoms they enjoy today. Doyle claims that opposing free speech will only bring about short-term wins, and states “for the sake of short-term gains, we end up sabotaging a principle that protects us all”.
As I stated before, the author did not frame his arguments from a left and right perspective, something I think was deliberate. That is why the claim of an echo chamber is frivolous. Doyle explains that the battle to preserve civil liberty is liberty vs authority, and not right vs left. Doyle is right. I have covered this subject ad nauseum within my writings and on my social media. But I will repeat one last time. Whilst woke culture masquerades as liberal, by all definitions of the word, it is the opposite. Those who seek to restrict or compel speech are nothing other than authoritarian, no matter how well-intentioned. You stop being liberal when you say the words, I believe in free speech BUT. It is worth remembering, even the worst dictators in history allowed speech they agreed with. To say, I believe in free speech but, is to throw yourself in with the worst of them.
The criticism that Doyle received (again, by those yet to read his book), is that it was one for the echo chamber, as @RobeyWanKenobi demonstrated “this book is an obvious echo chamber. Anyone buying it already agrees with it”. This claim couldn’t be further from the truth. Of course, many free-speech activists, including myself, will be drawn to this book. But it struck me when reading that we were not the intended audience. You see, far from being a polemic against the authoritarian left, as one might expect, Doyle attempts to reason and offer an olive branch to those who are guilty of calling for the state to intervene and define the parameters of free speech.
The book is a concise, 100-page account, consisting of 18 short chapters. Doyle presents contemporary examples of state overreach in regards to speech. In his opening chapter, “We need to check your thinking”, taken from the infamous case of retired police officer Harry Miller, who after sharing a supposedly offensive poem on social media, had a visit from the police. The police told Miller that whilst he had not committed a crime, the police “wanted to check his thinking”, or so they said. Whilst Doyle does not go as far to say that free speech is being curtailed, and recoils from such “hyperbole”, Doyle does state that “over the past decade many people have detected minor changes in our culture, a kind of piecemeal reconfiguration at odds with our hard-won rights to personal autonomy”. Doyle finishes the first chapter with the following passage, directly addressing those who hold an antithetical view on free speech, testament to the good faith discussion Doyle seeks to hold,
“I start from the proposition that free speech is nothing less than the keystone of our civilisation. You may have reservations about this view. You may believe that unlimited speech enables the worst elements of us to commit harm. There is much to be said in favour of this perspective, although I hope to show you that a society that abandons freedom of expression risks exacerbating the very problems about which you are rightly concerned”
Doyle returns to two arguments in his prose. First, in seeking to censor speech “we risk setting a precedent that the powerful will expose”.
Doyle continues with this notion “Many, if not most, are willing to sacrifice their freedom of speech and independent thought for the consolations of certitude. It is in the interest of the powerful to encourage this kind of docility”.
This is of course true. I have always found it queer that those who are in favour of state control over speech, are the ones who often claim not only the ubiquity of racism in society, but that racism has also infiltrated the British Government. Why on earth, therefore, would you want said Government to increase their power, regulate and compel speech? Whilst discussing the First Amendment in the chapter, Then and Now, Doyle states “they (the Founding Fathers) understood that free speech for all is the best defence against totalitarianism”
Doyle continues this theme in his penultimate chapter, Hate Speech, where he says, “The price we pay for a free society is that bad people will say bad things. We tolerate this, not because we approve of the content of their speech, but because once we have compromised on the principle of free speech, we clear the pathway for future tyrants”.
The second point which Doyle returns to, in attempts to convince his opponents; once laws and regulations are passed, they will eventually be used as a tool against those who seek to censor, as much as everyone else. Doyle uses the example of the Labour Party’s rush to pass laws in the backdrop of the Oswald Mosley led riots in the 1930s, which would prevent his blackshirts from mobilising. Doyle explains that the law in question was later used by the Thatcher government against protesting miners in the 1980s.
In the past decade, free speech has been framed as left vs right debate. The decision of the left to allow themselves to be placed on the side opposed to civil liberty is a stupidity words cannot describe. It is perverse when one considers the history of the Labour Party. The Labour Party are a movement with a proud history of standing up for liberty. The Idiosyncratic former Labour Leader, Michael Foot, who is often unfairly maligned by history, gave a rousing speech in the commons in the 1950s when the government organised a samizdat against the Daily Worker publication. The Labour Party, who’s modus operandi should be to challenge power for those without. Free speech is the mechanism for challenging power and changing orthodoxies. Whilst opponents of free speech will claim that at its worst, it can severely offend the less powerful, but also be aware, without free speech, homosexuals, non-whites and other minority groups would not have the freedoms they enjoy today. Doyle claims that opposing free speech will only bring about short-term wins, and states “for the sake of short-term gains, we end up sabotaging a principle that protects us all”.
As I stated before, the author did not frame his arguments from a left and right perspective, something I think was deliberate. That is why the claim of an echo chamber is frivolous. Doyle explains that the battle to preserve civil liberty is liberty vs authority, and not right vs left. Doyle is right. I have covered this subject ad nauseum within my writings and on my social media. But I will repeat one last time. Whilst woke culture masquerades as liberal, by all definitions of the word, it is the opposite. Those who seek to restrict or compel speech are nothing other than authoritarian, no matter how well-intentioned. You stop being liberal when you say the words, I believe in free speech BUT. It is worth remembering, even the worst dictators in history allowed speech they agreed with. To say, I believe in free speech but, is to throw yourself in with the worst of them.
March 13, 2021
This is a great concise and accessible book which puts forward the arguments for free speech and deals with the counterarguments and misconceptions of free speech. A must read for all, but I assume those most in need of reading it won't.
March 23, 2021
"The price we pay for a free society is that bad people will say bad things. We tolerate this, not because we approve of the content of their speech, but because once we have compromised on the principle of free speech we clear a pathway to future tyranny."
Is free speech harmful for society? Does it provide a shield for those that seek to spread deplorable ideas, or equip us with the ability to challenge them?
"Opposition to free speech never goes away, which is why it must be defended anew in each successive generation". This challenge to freedom of speech has risen once more and this new book by Andrew Doyle provides a convincing case for why we should defend this central value of western civilisation.
Some key takeaways:
• While many have good intentions for restricting speech, their support for authoritarian speech codes has historically shown to work against their cause.
• Shutting down discourse doesn't suddenly change people's minds. Rather, it creates echo chambers that allow woeful ideals to grow in influence. Free speech on other hand gives us an avenue through which we can challenge these ideas and foster an atmosphere of open-mindedness.
• Free speech helps to cultivate intellectual humility and an awareness that we don't have all the answers. It helps us to probe our deeply held but rarely examined beliefs to see if they are indeed true.
• Be generous in your interpretation of other people. Stop and consider someone's intentions and motives before jumping to conclusions or taking offense. Maybe you got something wrong.
• Granting the government power to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate speech establishes a dangerous precedent. Don't be so sure that you will never be on the receiving end of speech violations in the future.
Simply put, this book is excellent. It is remarkably concise, boiling down multiple complex issues into a 100-page book is no simple task but Doyle delivers. From censorship and cancel culture to comedy and satire, no stone is left unturned. It is short, but it packs a punch.
It is remarkable that even though my worldview is completely at odds with the author, we are both united on this topic. Free speech has that ability.
Highly recommend.
Is free speech harmful for society? Does it provide a shield for those that seek to spread deplorable ideas, or equip us with the ability to challenge them?
"Opposition to free speech never goes away, which is why it must be defended anew in each successive generation". This challenge to freedom of speech has risen once more and this new book by Andrew Doyle provides a convincing case for why we should defend this central value of western civilisation.
Some key takeaways:
• While many have good intentions for restricting speech, their support for authoritarian speech codes has historically shown to work against their cause.
• Shutting down discourse doesn't suddenly change people's minds. Rather, it creates echo chambers that allow woeful ideals to grow in influence. Free speech on other hand gives us an avenue through which we can challenge these ideas and foster an atmosphere of open-mindedness.
• Free speech helps to cultivate intellectual humility and an awareness that we don't have all the answers. It helps us to probe our deeply held but rarely examined beliefs to see if they are indeed true.
• Be generous in your interpretation of other people. Stop and consider someone's intentions and motives before jumping to conclusions or taking offense. Maybe you got something wrong.
• Granting the government power to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate speech establishes a dangerous precedent. Don't be so sure that you will never be on the receiving end of speech violations in the future.
Simply put, this book is excellent. It is remarkably concise, boiling down multiple complex issues into a 100-page book is no simple task but Doyle delivers. From censorship and cancel culture to comedy and satire, no stone is left unturned. It is short, but it packs a punch.
It is remarkable that even though my worldview is completely at odds with the author, we are both united on this topic. Free speech has that ability.
Highly recommend.
April 20, 2022
This isn't about free speech, not really. But I'm still puzzling over what it's actually about. Perhaps it's ...
・a nightmare of the author's own creation
・a thought experiment meant to provoke but to unknown ends
・an experiment in irony
・an example of modern apologetics for the New Left
・something more sinister ...?
What I can say is that, in the end, I found it to be little more than a collection of shifting goalposts premised on a red herring and outfitted in pseudo-intellectual argumentation ... more or less the whinging of an over-privileged grandstander who was unable or unwilling to critically examine his own logical pitfalls ... maybe intentionally doing so for self-serving ends, hoping that the reader would nod along willingly.
The author's thesis is that the right to free speech is being attacked. He goes over several cases in which he feels this is evident: state censorship, freedom of the press, cancel culture, non-hate hate speech regulations, social media companies, "thoughtcrimes," and a lack of trust among the citizenship, to name the major ones. But despite what he claims and how he frames each of these subjects, it's clear that he's either missing the point or, ironically, criticizing the people who have exercised their right to free speech when it wasn't in line with his own personal ideals.
The reason why escapes me. I can't even say for sure if it's well-meaning but naïve … or some nefarious variety of blinkered.
Hints of a more insidious motive abound. Doyle spends some time ingratiating the reader to the idea that the "liberals" and "conservatives" aren't so different. He peppers the text with hyperlinks to various sources, some academic and some not ... some faithfully contextualized, some not. He concedes some points and expresses compassion for viewpoints he does not agree with: "I have some sympathy with Barrett's reasoning," he writes. He uses words like "thoughtcrime" and "non-conformist viewpoints" and "illiberalism" without irony. In short, he takes on the guise of a careful and considerate scholar who nonetheless must brave speaking "the Truth," of which there is only one in most cases.
In his acknowledgements, Doyle writes: "I am grateful to all those organisations upholding freedom of speech at a time when there are so many who would see our liberties curbed." This is his fear incarnate. Who are these "so many"? By the end of the text, we still have no clear idea. I'd argue that it's a phantasm of the privileged few, one that signals a loss of social power. This text would then be a dirge for changing times ... the author and those of his station mourning the shift, in denial and desperate to pin the blame somewhere, even while time drags them through the stages of grief. I hope that they turn to each other for this emotional labour.
My ebook is filled with highlights that I don't have the time or energy to cover. Here's a sampling of the problems (or should I say "problematic" elements?) that I noticed (or should I say "believe to be true?"), with examples:
Biased framings, black and white thinking, and cherry-picking
Like Starbucks, they’re everywhere! (Was that a generalization? Oops!) The text opens with a doozy: "a society that abandons freedom of expression risks exacerbating the very problems about which you are rightly concerned [namely, committing harm]." Yikes! "Abandoning" free speech, like throwing the baby out with the bath water? And why only consider the graver harms that may result? (At least this is phrased as a potential rather than an absolute.) In another spot, Doyle argues that "by saying 'you can't say anything anymore' you are discrediting the point in the very act of speaking." Only if you rely on the most superficial understanding of that phrase and view the world in binary terms!
From the examples to the very concepts discussed, cherry-picking was evident. Cancel culture? A form of social ostracism (sure) but "often for relatively minor mistakes or unfashionable opinions" (!) where those who partake in it "habitually engage in what is known as 'gaslighting'" (!!) where they "smear their targets as 'bullies' as a means to bully them, or cast themselves in the role of victim while they victimise others" (!!!). In Doyle's world, there is no room for generally powerless groups of people coming together and harnessing social media to publicly criticize and demand accountability for those in positions of power who have done harm. His framing of cancel culture and other subjects is limited and unrepresentative ... crafted to fit his narrative, comprehensiveness and nuance be damned.
I also don't get the confusion around hate speech and hate crimes. Have you said or done something harmful towards a particular group of people or a member thereof for no other reason than that they're of that group? Then it's a hate act. Pretty cut and dry. Again, I'm not convinced that anyone is even denying the right to speak with hatred ... rather, the focus is on what the repercussions should be. Is this really so hard to grasp, or is Doyle fully aware and writing in the service of ulterior motives? I think most of us are on board with the idea that "speech [can be] the mechanism of criminal activity, but is not the crime itself."
Doyle seems to have no understanding of social power (or he does and twists words to suit some other purpose). He writes that it is "a great shame that social justice activists have so consistently failed to defend diversity of opinion," as if defending diversity in opinion in any way relates to tackling injustices meted out to particular groups of people. He goes on to bemoan how "those with perceived 'privilege' are less entitled to opine on the subject ... a straight, white male is likely to be met with the objection that he is unqualified to apprehend the potential harm of words. But when the same arguments are advanced by a black lesbian, as they so often have been, there is nowhere left for the identity-fixated critic to retreat." So much to unpack here. The real problem is that privilege is invisible to those who have it, by definition. Straight white men are not the most qualified because they'll never have the experience of black lesbians. The issue of social power also seems to be absent from Doyle's reasoning. Straight white men (just running with the example here) have so much social power that people will listen to them over black lesbians, even about the black lesbian experience. Also, citations needed! I find it difficult to understand why someone would write such a complaint, essentially whinging about no longer being the go-to guy, when they could join other straight, white male allies in joyously doing social justice work. Talk about "obfuscating the real issue in question"!
On that note, Doyle relies on the use of imaginary scenarios, e.g., gay students rallying against inviting an anti-gay guest speaker, and vague assertions of prevalence, e.g., "most," "in most cases," etc. These valid forms of rhetoric give Doyle a certain level of undue credence. Given all of the problems with this text and especially the many disingenuous sentiments scattered across it, I worry that these are in effect tactics employed to put on an air of scholarly rigour, superficial at best and likely manipulative in truth.
Citations needed
Statements presented as fact or self-evident grace the text from front to back. Okay, it's an opinion piece. But what bothered me with the selective nature of Doyle's citations. Hyperlinks to various sources are everywhere, but not always where we would expect or need them to be. For example, he writes: "Leaving aside the bizarre phenomenon of self-identified leftists calling for greater powers for faceless corporations ..." Citation, please! Who are these "self-identified leftists"? How many are they? Are they affiliated in some way? How big is this "phenomenon"? Who are the "faceless corporations" in question? This is a fascinating little tidbit ... with absolutely no basis in reality, as far as I'm aware. Doyle could've easily provided at least one source to get the ball rolling ... or maybe not so easily because it's an exaggeration or worse.
And then we get to these nuggets: JKR's "conviction that there is a biological basis to womanhood, one shared by the majority of the population as well as the scientific community" and Helen Lewis's take on gender identity, which he describes as "nuanced and compassionate, but not wholly in line with current intersectional trends." I should've seen it coming with the use of "he or she" throughout the text! Doyle is more or less a bulldog for the TERFs. He is very sad and concerned about the criticism leveled at JRK, Helen Lewis, and others (again, this is not a book about free speech, not really ... or at least, not everyone's ability to exercise free speech). Worse, he conflates gender and sex while taking advantage of a current shift in scientific consensus. We have long understood but not socially accepted (!) and are only now (agonizingly slowly, but surely) adapting to new models of sex and gender that more accurately reflect reality. Science is a social institution created by people, and subject to all of the same growing pains for which humanity is well known generally. Here are some recent peer-reviewed academic papers from a variety of fields published to some of the the top general science and disciplinary venues ... and aren't difficult to find. Indeed, these are quite famous in the scholarly community ... and I do mean famous rather than infamous.
・The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary
・Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering
・The Effects of Gender Trouble: An Integrative Theoretical Framework of the Perpetuation and Disruption of the Gender/Sex Binary
・The feminist frontier: On trans and feminism
Lastly, on people requesting that others use the pronouns of their own choosing, Doyle writes: "To force citizens to speak falsehoods as though they were the truth is a form of psychological control common to dictatorships." Wooooooooo-eeee! Where to begin. How about I put it this way: What's the harm to you? So what if you perceive it as a "falsehood"? Do you not wish to treat others with a bare modicum of respect, and certainly avoid harming them? Do you not appreciate the tip? Doyle's line of thinking here is so incredibly self-centred ... apparently, politeness and respect are defined solely by the giver and his single, correct model of the world. And if you don't accept it, then you're the rude one.
Cringe-worthy blind spots, hypocrisy, and naïveté
A lot of the ideas Doyle lays out are valid ... except that he constantly fails to apply them to his own text. For example, he writes about "those who mistake criticism for censorship" only to later bemoan those who criticized JKR and others. You can't have it both ways! Doyle writes of a time where "many of my colleagues had given up on making jokes in the classroom because they understood that deliberate misconstructions of their words could be used against them by pupils or parents with a personal grudge." Of course, Doyle doesn't share what these "jokes" were, but I think we can take a guess. I'd love to know what these "deliberate misconstructions" could be. And of course anyone who expressed having a problem with these "jokes" (read: anyone who dared to criticize ... but Doyle can't write that, as it would be hypocritical) in fact was simply acting on a "personal grudge." How convenient!
I was surprised to come across this line of argumentation, courtesy of Socrates and fully endorsed by Doyle: "given that misery is the desire and possession of evil, and that nobody desires to be miserable, there can be nobody who knowingly desires evil things." Wow, I'm convinced. Hate isn't real! People who do shitty things on purpose actually think they're doing good! And in any case intent is more important than resulting harms, at least to Doyle. He brings up the example of Charlie Hebdo's depiction of Christiane Taubira as a monkey. How can a generally anti-racist group of people do something racist? he opines. Here's the thing: even anti-racists can fuck up sometimes. The question we should be asking is: If the target was the racist nationalists who initially compared Taubira to a monkey, why was she, the victim, used as the vessel of retribution? Especially given the real harm that continued visual associations between Black folks and monkeys likely have? This is where privilege comes in: those with social power ignorantly invoke it by objectifying those with less social power, even to the extent of weaponizing those who are most harmed simply to "one up" each other.
Doyle argues that people can choose to be harmed or not. That we're all on a level playing field and generally respectful and polite to each other. Well ... hate to break it to ya ... but this is not reality for most people, excepting straight white men, maybe. We know, for instance, that women and minorities face a significantly greater barrage of hate speech online. Tell me: How can we simply choose to ignore it? Does this not require effort? Doesn't it zap our energy and make us feel unwelcome? Doesn't it cause psychological harm? (Yup, and here's one recent study to consider.) How do we keep up the momentum day after day, year after year? Doyle does not accept that harm can be incurred ... it's simply a matter of personal resilience. He writes: "Of course, we have every reason to suppose that the life of a Roman emperor might be more comfortable than ours." This is the extent to which Doyle understands social power. And dismissive to the extreme. Newsflash: Not wanting to be exposed to verbal abuse and other forms of harassment every day online goes beyond merely a desire for "comfort." fyi: Here's a recent large-scale study showing the prevalence of digital harassment among gender- and sexuality-diverse adults. How wonderful it must be to never experience the breadth and severity of verbal abuse characterizing the majority of humanity's daily lived experience online. I'd like to know how I can make a "choice" here, how I can not "consent" to being harmed. Maybe Doyle should try programming his Amazon Alexa to periodically call him a vociferous turd, a worthless cretin, an unwelcome sod, and other more strongly-worded insults, and see how long he can refuse to "consent" to being harmed by it.
The good points? The writing, from a technical standpoint. Many of the high-level ideas were also solid. Yes, we need free speech. The point is, there is no group, certainly none large or mighty, advocating against this. Show me the receipts.
A grand embarrassment or something more sinister ... I'll let you be the judge. As for the author, I wonder: What side of history do you want to be on?
・a nightmare of the author's own creation
・a thought experiment meant to provoke but to unknown ends
・an experiment in irony
・an example of modern apologetics for the New Left
・something more sinister ...?
What I can say is that, in the end, I found it to be little more than a collection of shifting goalposts premised on a red herring and outfitted in pseudo-intellectual argumentation ... more or less the whinging of an over-privileged grandstander who was unable or unwilling to critically examine his own logical pitfalls ... maybe intentionally doing so for self-serving ends, hoping that the reader would nod along willingly.
The author's thesis is that the right to free speech is being attacked. He goes over several cases in which he feels this is evident: state censorship, freedom of the press, cancel culture, non-hate hate speech regulations, social media companies, "thoughtcrimes," and a lack of trust among the citizenship, to name the major ones. But despite what he claims and how he frames each of these subjects, it's clear that he's either missing the point or, ironically, criticizing the people who have exercised their right to free speech when it wasn't in line with his own personal ideals.
The reason why escapes me. I can't even say for sure if it's well-meaning but naïve … or some nefarious variety of blinkered.
Hints of a more insidious motive abound. Doyle spends some time ingratiating the reader to the idea that the "liberals" and "conservatives" aren't so different. He peppers the text with hyperlinks to various sources, some academic and some not ... some faithfully contextualized, some not. He concedes some points and expresses compassion for viewpoints he does not agree with: "I have some sympathy with Barrett's reasoning," he writes. He uses words like "thoughtcrime" and "non-conformist viewpoints" and "illiberalism" without irony. In short, he takes on the guise of a careful and considerate scholar who nonetheless must brave speaking "the Truth," of which there is only one in most cases.
In his acknowledgements, Doyle writes: "I am grateful to all those organisations upholding freedom of speech at a time when there are so many who would see our liberties curbed." This is his fear incarnate. Who are these "so many"? By the end of the text, we still have no clear idea. I'd argue that it's a phantasm of the privileged few, one that signals a loss of social power. This text would then be a dirge for changing times ... the author and those of his station mourning the shift, in denial and desperate to pin the blame somewhere, even while time drags them through the stages of grief. I hope that they turn to each other for this emotional labour.
My ebook is filled with highlights that I don't have the time or energy to cover. Here's a sampling of the problems (or should I say "problematic" elements?) that I noticed (or should I say "believe to be true?"), with examples:
Biased framings, black and white thinking, and cherry-picking
Like Starbucks, they’re everywhere! (Was that a generalization? Oops!) The text opens with a doozy: "a society that abandons freedom of expression risks exacerbating the very problems about which you are rightly concerned [namely, committing harm]." Yikes! "Abandoning" free speech, like throwing the baby out with the bath water? And why only consider the graver harms that may result? (At least this is phrased as a potential rather than an absolute.) In another spot, Doyle argues that "by saying 'you can't say anything anymore' you are discrediting the point in the very act of speaking." Only if you rely on the most superficial understanding of that phrase and view the world in binary terms!
From the examples to the very concepts discussed, cherry-picking was evident. Cancel culture? A form of social ostracism (sure) but "often for relatively minor mistakes or unfashionable opinions" (!) where those who partake in it "habitually engage in what is known as 'gaslighting'" (!!) where they "smear their targets as 'bullies' as a means to bully them, or cast themselves in the role of victim while they victimise others" (!!!). In Doyle's world, there is no room for generally powerless groups of people coming together and harnessing social media to publicly criticize and demand accountability for those in positions of power who have done harm. His framing of cancel culture and other subjects is limited and unrepresentative ... crafted to fit his narrative, comprehensiveness and nuance be damned.
I also don't get the confusion around hate speech and hate crimes. Have you said or done something harmful towards a particular group of people or a member thereof for no other reason than that they're of that group? Then it's a hate act. Pretty cut and dry. Again, I'm not convinced that anyone is even denying the right to speak with hatred ... rather, the focus is on what the repercussions should be. Is this really so hard to grasp, or is Doyle fully aware and writing in the service of ulterior motives? I think most of us are on board with the idea that "speech [can be] the mechanism of criminal activity, but is not the crime itself."
Doyle seems to have no understanding of social power (or he does and twists words to suit some other purpose). He writes that it is "a great shame that social justice activists have so consistently failed to defend diversity of opinion," as if defending diversity in opinion in any way relates to tackling injustices meted out to particular groups of people. He goes on to bemoan how "those with perceived 'privilege' are less entitled to opine on the subject ... a straight, white male is likely to be met with the objection that he is unqualified to apprehend the potential harm of words. But when the same arguments are advanced by a black lesbian, as they so often have been, there is nowhere left for the identity-fixated critic to retreat." So much to unpack here. The real problem is that privilege is invisible to those who have it, by definition. Straight white men are not the most qualified because they'll never have the experience of black lesbians. The issue of social power also seems to be absent from Doyle's reasoning. Straight white men (just running with the example here) have so much social power that people will listen to them over black lesbians, even about the black lesbian experience. Also, citations needed! I find it difficult to understand why someone would write such a complaint, essentially whinging about no longer being the go-to guy, when they could join other straight, white male allies in joyously doing social justice work. Talk about "obfuscating the real issue in question"!
On that note, Doyle relies on the use of imaginary scenarios, e.g., gay students rallying against inviting an anti-gay guest speaker, and vague assertions of prevalence, e.g., "most," "in most cases," etc. These valid forms of rhetoric give Doyle a certain level of undue credence. Given all of the problems with this text and especially the many disingenuous sentiments scattered across it, I worry that these are in effect tactics employed to put on an air of scholarly rigour, superficial at best and likely manipulative in truth.
Citations needed
Statements presented as fact or self-evident grace the text from front to back. Okay, it's an opinion piece. But what bothered me with the selective nature of Doyle's citations. Hyperlinks to various sources are everywhere, but not always where we would expect or need them to be. For example, he writes: "Leaving aside the bizarre phenomenon of self-identified leftists calling for greater powers for faceless corporations ..." Citation, please! Who are these "self-identified leftists"? How many are they? Are they affiliated in some way? How big is this "phenomenon"? Who are the "faceless corporations" in question? This is a fascinating little tidbit ... with absolutely no basis in reality, as far as I'm aware. Doyle could've easily provided at least one source to get the ball rolling ... or maybe not so easily because it's an exaggeration or worse.
And then we get to these nuggets: JKR's "conviction that there is a biological basis to womanhood, one shared by the majority of the population as well as the scientific community" and Helen Lewis's take on gender identity, which he describes as "nuanced and compassionate, but not wholly in line with current intersectional trends." I should've seen it coming with the use of "he or she" throughout the text! Doyle is more or less a bulldog for the TERFs. He is very sad and concerned about the criticism leveled at JRK, Helen Lewis, and others (again, this is not a book about free speech, not really ... or at least, not everyone's ability to exercise free speech). Worse, he conflates gender and sex while taking advantage of a current shift in scientific consensus. We have long understood but not socially accepted (!) and are only now (agonizingly slowly, but surely) adapting to new models of sex and gender that more accurately reflect reality. Science is a social institution created by people, and subject to all of the same growing pains for which humanity is well known generally. Here are some recent peer-reviewed academic papers from a variety of fields published to some of the the top general science and disciplinary venues ... and aren't difficult to find. Indeed, these are quite famous in the scholarly community ... and I do mean famous rather than infamous.
・The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary
・Sex and gender analysis improves science and engineering
・The Effects of Gender Trouble: An Integrative Theoretical Framework of the Perpetuation and Disruption of the Gender/Sex Binary
・The feminist frontier: On trans and feminism
Lastly, on people requesting that others use the pronouns of their own choosing, Doyle writes: "To force citizens to speak falsehoods as though they were the truth is a form of psychological control common to dictatorships." Wooooooooo-eeee! Where to begin. How about I put it this way: What's the harm to you? So what if you perceive it as a "falsehood"? Do you not wish to treat others with a bare modicum of respect, and certainly avoid harming them? Do you not appreciate the tip? Doyle's line of thinking here is so incredibly self-centred ... apparently, politeness and respect are defined solely by the giver and his single, correct model of the world. And if you don't accept it, then you're the rude one.
Cringe-worthy blind spots, hypocrisy, and naïveté
A lot of the ideas Doyle lays out are valid ... except that he constantly fails to apply them to his own text. For example, he writes about "those who mistake criticism for censorship" only to later bemoan those who criticized JKR and others. You can't have it both ways! Doyle writes of a time where "many of my colleagues had given up on making jokes in the classroom because they understood that deliberate misconstructions of their words could be used against them by pupils or parents with a personal grudge." Of course, Doyle doesn't share what these "jokes" were, but I think we can take a guess. I'd love to know what these "deliberate misconstructions" could be. And of course anyone who expressed having a problem with these "jokes" (read: anyone who dared to criticize ... but Doyle can't write that, as it would be hypocritical) in fact was simply acting on a "personal grudge." How convenient!
I was surprised to come across this line of argumentation, courtesy of Socrates and fully endorsed by Doyle: "given that misery is the desire and possession of evil, and that nobody desires to be miserable, there can be nobody who knowingly desires evil things." Wow, I'm convinced. Hate isn't real! People who do shitty things on purpose actually think they're doing good! And in any case intent is more important than resulting harms, at least to Doyle. He brings up the example of Charlie Hebdo's depiction of Christiane Taubira as a monkey. How can a generally anti-racist group of people do something racist? he opines. Here's the thing: even anti-racists can fuck up sometimes. The question we should be asking is: If the target was the racist nationalists who initially compared Taubira to a monkey, why was she, the victim, used as the vessel of retribution? Especially given the real harm that continued visual associations between Black folks and monkeys likely have? This is where privilege comes in: those with social power ignorantly invoke it by objectifying those with less social power, even to the extent of weaponizing those who are most harmed simply to "one up" each other.
Doyle argues that people can choose to be harmed or not. That we're all on a level playing field and generally respectful and polite to each other. Well ... hate to break it to ya ... but this is not reality for most people, excepting straight white men, maybe. We know, for instance, that women and minorities face a significantly greater barrage of hate speech online. Tell me: How can we simply choose to ignore it? Does this not require effort? Doesn't it zap our energy and make us feel unwelcome? Doesn't it cause psychological harm? (Yup, and here's one recent study to consider.) How do we keep up the momentum day after day, year after year? Doyle does not accept that harm can be incurred ... it's simply a matter of personal resilience. He writes: "Of course, we have every reason to suppose that the life of a Roman emperor might be more comfortable than ours." This is the extent to which Doyle understands social power. And dismissive to the extreme. Newsflash: Not wanting to be exposed to verbal abuse and other forms of harassment every day online goes beyond merely a desire for "comfort." fyi: Here's a recent large-scale study showing the prevalence of digital harassment among gender- and sexuality-diverse adults. How wonderful it must be to never experience the breadth and severity of verbal abuse characterizing the majority of humanity's daily lived experience online. I'd like to know how I can make a "choice" here, how I can not "consent" to being harmed. Maybe Doyle should try programming his Amazon Alexa to periodically call him a vociferous turd, a worthless cretin, an unwelcome sod, and other more strongly-worded insults, and see how long he can refuse to "consent" to being harmed by it.
The good points? The writing, from a technical standpoint. Many of the high-level ideas were also solid. Yes, we need free speech. The point is, there is no group, certainly none large or mighty, advocating against this. Show me the receipts.
A grand embarrassment or something more sinister ... I'll let you be the judge. As for the author, I wonder: What side of history do you want to be on?
August 17, 2022
The gist of this book: "Free speech is the marrow of democracy. Without it, no other liberties exist. It is detested by tyrants because it empowers their captive subjects. It is mistrusted by puritans because it is the wellspring of subversion. Unless we are able to speak our minds, we cannot innovative, or even begin to make sense of the world". (p. 6)
I am pleasantly surprised by Andrew Doyle's ability to argue his position on free speech with such clarity, fairness and persuasiveness. Bravo!
I am pleasantly surprised by Andrew Doyle's ability to argue his position on free speech with such clarity, fairness and persuasiveness. Bravo!
March 18, 2021
A brilliant and to the point defence of free speech for our times.
April 13, 2021
At its best, Andrew Doyle’s ‘Free Speech’ is good a synthesis of some important ideas. At its worst, however, this is all the book is. It reads more like a collection of articles or short essays than anything else. This allows other problems to seep through. Firstly, he fails to define his terms or properly engage with the range of ideas within the liberal tradition concerning free speech. Secondly, there is a failure to properly confront the arguments his opponents are making. Thirdly, evidence to support his position is not properly interrogated within the main text. Finally, cracks form in the argument that create uncomfortable inconsistencies that need to be addressed, or incomplete points that need further development. The book therefore left a lot to be desired for me. It is all the more disappointing because I actually agree with much of what is said. If freedom of speech really is under threat, we need the best arguments we can get. Unfortunately, if the intention is to persuade others, this isn’t the book to do it.
For the full review, see here: https://buckysbookreviews.com/2021/04...
For the full review, see here: https://buckysbookreviews.com/2021/04...
October 15, 2022
The reason I give this book 4 stars is it brings to the table a relevant and often overlooked topic. I don't think Doyle made the best case for free speech, and I'm sure other people defend it better. But it's a good book to begin understanding the topic.
The main takeaway is that if you censor someone, you risk your own freedom and allow others to eventually censor you back.
The main takeaway is that if you censor someone, you risk your own freedom and allow others to eventually censor you back.
July 25, 2021
This book is terrible! Aside from the fact Andrew Doyle doesn't present anything new on the subject, his writing is manipulative and fanciful. He is so scarred of disagreement that he can't just write honestly. He has to use loaded words and try and tug at the heart strings, to the point that you have to question his genuiness. Despite an impressive list of sources, Doyle knows very little about the current events he discusses, and a lot of the time he deliberately twists the facts in order to push his narrative. For example, he claims that J.K. Rowling isn't a transphobe. That she's just simply stating biological fact and supporting women's rights. However, he leaves out the fact that Rowling has championed a woman who accused the trans community of being perverts and compared them to blackfaced actors, tweeted articles that portray trans people as a threat, promoted a store that sells anti-trans merch, and that a lot of her claims have been proven to be false. (Her biggest claim, that letting trans women into women only places will lead to sexual assault, has been debunked long ago. In the UK, trans women have been allowed into women's only bathrooms for more than a decade now, and we haven't seen a rise in sexual assaults. And in the states, they allow trans women into women's only shelters. And guess what: No cases of women being assaulted! A lot the claims that trans women are threats is nothing but nonsensical fear mongering created by people who don't want to do their research.) He also claims that none of Rowling's critics were there to criticize her, but to punish. This couldn't be further from the truth. While there were indeed abusive messages aimed at her, not all of them were like that. If he did his research, he would've found that there are several people (such as ContraPoints, Andrew James Carter, Miss London, Jammidodger, Essence of Thought, Jessie Gender and Riley Grace Roshong) who actually brought up some genuine criticisms about Rowling's claims. As mentioned, a lot of her claims have been proven to be false and irrational, and they were simply trying to set the record straight. And when we do see them get heated, they have reason to do so. Rowling refuses to listen to the other side. She blocks those who challenge her narrative, and only listens to those who agree with her. So it's understandable that people would get angry. So for Doyle to portray all of Rowling's critics as violent trolls is completely misleading! To add insult to injury, Doyle himself is a supporter of the Gender Critical movement (a cult-like cause that pushes the nonsensical narrative that trans people are mentally ill rapists trying to wipe out women and gay people.) Despite his attempts to look fair and balanced, he can't help but let his bias slip. He clearly has made his mind up along time ago, and so anyone who questions his narrative is immediately written off as a hater.
But the worst part about this book its stench of hypocrisy. Doyle doesn't actually follow what he preaches. In 2020, it was revealed that at his Comedy Unleashed shows, he censors comics who he disagrees with and tries to tamper with their routine so that it pushes his anti-woke agenda. And in late 2019, he tried to sue Sam Whyte after she made a joke about him in her act. Despite being against cancel culture, he was actually going to destroy another comedian's career because his feelings were hurt. The only reason why it didn't amount to anything is because he realised he didn't have much of a case. And then there's his frequent blocking of people on Twitter who disagrees with him or point errors in his intel (and yes I know that's not censorship or cancel culture per say, however it does betray a key aspect of free speech: listening to the other side), and his selling out to organisations that support silencing anything deemed as Left-wing (like working for GB News -- the news outlet that fired one of its reporters for seemingly supporting BLM. A controversy which Doyle has been hush hush about). So I do not recommend this book. It relies too heavily on manipulation to try and make its point, and its discussion of current events borders on fake news. And its author is a biased hypocrite who doesn't actually care about what he fights for. He's just another grifter cashing in on controversy.
But the worst part about this book its stench of hypocrisy. Doyle doesn't actually follow what he preaches. In 2020, it was revealed that at his Comedy Unleashed shows, he censors comics who he disagrees with and tries to tamper with their routine so that it pushes his anti-woke agenda. And in late 2019, he tried to sue Sam Whyte after she made a joke about him in her act. Despite being against cancel culture, he was actually going to destroy another comedian's career because his feelings were hurt. The only reason why it didn't amount to anything is because he realised he didn't have much of a case. And then there's his frequent blocking of people on Twitter who disagrees with him or point errors in his intel (and yes I know that's not censorship or cancel culture per say, however it does betray a key aspect of free speech: listening to the other side), and his selling out to organisations that support silencing anything deemed as Left-wing (like working for GB News -- the news outlet that fired one of its reporters for seemingly supporting BLM. A controversy which Doyle has been hush hush about). So I do not recommend this book. It relies too heavily on manipulation to try and make its point, and its discussion of current events borders on fake news. And its author is a biased hypocrite who doesn't actually care about what he fights for. He's just another grifter cashing in on controversy.
August 16, 2021
4.5 stars. Andrew Doyle mounts an accessible and succinct defense of free speech, framing it in the context of current events.
That he ends up taking more about common sense and our lack thereof just goes to show what a bigot and a homophobe he is.
That he ends up taking more about common sense and our lack thereof just goes to show what a bigot and a homophobe he is.
May 4, 2021
This book is garbage.
First thing first the idea of absolute freedom of speech is just lazy and paranoid.
Your state has nuclear weapons. You trust your state enough to possess that but not to decide if speech of neo Nazis should be banned or not?
Because yes in this book the enlightened writer has supported the freedom of speech of neo Nazis to march from a suburb which is majority jew because freedom of speech, duh. At the same time he says freedom of spech doesn't mean right to be heard but he wants neo Nazis to have the right to be heard by a Jewish suburb and disagrees with their decision to ban them which just means they decided not to hear it. So what the fuck he is saying he himself doesn't know.
Writer says minority is only safe when there is freedom of speech and this book is an example of how in the guise of freedom of speech racists want the freedom to be racist.
He tells you herbert spencer was an imperialist and supported racial cleansing but asks you is it right to throw all his output? Yes Mr genius it's not only right but it's important for survival.
He wants you to accept herbert spencer was right when he said there is a soul of truth in all erroneous thing. That's probably the most absurd thing you will ever hear. Soul of truth in all erroneous thing? It's erroneous you idiot. There is no truth in it.
He wants you to accept based on that arguement of spencer that ideology of racism and neo Nazis have some soul of truth too.
Absolute freedom of speech is dangerous. When neo Nazis speak they are not trying to prove a point or have a debate. They speak to recrute. Supporting their freedom of speech means encouraging their recruitment. And that's just one step away from genocide.
First thing first the idea of absolute freedom of speech is just lazy and paranoid.
Your state has nuclear weapons. You trust your state enough to possess that but not to decide if speech of neo Nazis should be banned or not?
Because yes in this book the enlightened writer has supported the freedom of speech of neo Nazis to march from a suburb which is majority jew because freedom of speech, duh. At the same time he says freedom of spech doesn't mean right to be heard but he wants neo Nazis to have the right to be heard by a Jewish suburb and disagrees with their decision to ban them which just means they decided not to hear it. So what the fuck he is saying he himself doesn't know.
Writer says minority is only safe when there is freedom of speech and this book is an example of how in the guise of freedom of speech racists want the freedom to be racist.
He tells you herbert spencer was an imperialist and supported racial cleansing but asks you is it right to throw all his output? Yes Mr genius it's not only right but it's important for survival.
He wants you to accept herbert spencer was right when he said there is a soul of truth in all erroneous thing. That's probably the most absurd thing you will ever hear. Soul of truth in all erroneous thing? It's erroneous you idiot. There is no truth in it.
He wants you to accept based on that arguement of spencer that ideology of racism and neo Nazis have some soul of truth too.
Absolute freedom of speech is dangerous. When neo Nazis speak they are not trying to prove a point or have a debate. They speak to recrute. Supporting their freedom of speech means encouraging their recruitment. And that's just one step away from genocide.
May 18, 2023
Free Speech and Why It Matters (2021) by Andrew Doyle is quite a good defence of free speech in the woke era. Andrew Doyle has a doctorate in poetry from Oxford and these days is better known as the fictional Twitter celebrity Titania McGrath. He describes himself as left-wing.
The book looks at how views held by left wing writers such as JK Rowling and Noam Chomsky have decried modern ‘cancel culture’. Rowling and people she support have been dropped by publishers. People have been cancelled merely for supporting Rowling. Marxist Feminists such as Germaine Greer are not allowed by various universities to speak due to their views on transgender issues.
It’s a curious change. Doyle notes that today young people support limiting free speech on comedians. Doyle gets some remarkable quotes about the murder of employees Charlie Hebdo from Justin Trudeau amongst others, suggesting that making jokes about religion should be limited.
Doyle writes very well about how UK police have been called in to police speech on twitter that expresses views that others deem hurtful. He points out the impressive absurdity of this. Doyle also looks at the sad decline of the ACLU in the US.
The book provides a good defence of free speech and carefully chronicles many of the current absurdities that have happened as people have been censored and silenced. It’s well worth a read.
The book looks at how views held by left wing writers such as JK Rowling and Noam Chomsky have decried modern ‘cancel culture’. Rowling and people she support have been dropped by publishers. People have been cancelled merely for supporting Rowling. Marxist Feminists such as Germaine Greer are not allowed by various universities to speak due to their views on transgender issues.
It’s a curious change. Doyle notes that today young people support limiting free speech on comedians. Doyle gets some remarkable quotes about the murder of employees Charlie Hebdo from Justin Trudeau amongst others, suggesting that making jokes about religion should be limited.
Doyle writes very well about how UK police have been called in to police speech on twitter that expresses views that others deem hurtful. He points out the impressive absurdity of this. Doyle also looks at the sad decline of the ACLU in the US.
The book provides a good defence of free speech and carefully chronicles many of the current absurdities that have happened as people have been censored and silenced. It’s well worth a read.
March 4, 2021
"There will always be those whose instinct inclines towards submission to authority, who are happy to shift beliefs in accordance with the fashion or decrees from above. Orwell called this the 'gramophone mind', content to play the record of the moment whether or not one is in agreement'
Critics, too, now regularly assess artistic works on the basis of how closely the artist reflects their own ideological perspective. It goes without saying that total objectivity is neither possible nor desirable when it comes to professional criticism, but it would appear that a significant proportion now see their role as censuring art that they perceive to be 'problematic'.
Popular culture, then, becomes a means of social control, which is why 'representation' and sending the 'correct' moral message are seen as so crucial. But artists are by no means obliged to provide moral instruction, either through their lives or their work. Furthermore, to judge art by how effectively it reinforces contemporary ethical standards is entirely to misapprehend its purpose.
I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's observation in his preface to 'The Picture of Dorian Grey' (1890): 'There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all'
Critics, too, now regularly assess artistic works on the basis of how closely the artist reflects their own ideological perspective. It goes without saying that total objectivity is neither possible nor desirable when it comes to professional criticism, but it would appear that a significant proportion now see their role as censuring art that they perceive to be 'problematic'.
Popular culture, then, becomes a means of social control, which is why 'representation' and sending the 'correct' moral message are seen as so crucial. But artists are by no means obliged to provide moral instruction, either through their lives or their work. Furthermore, to judge art by how effectively it reinforces contemporary ethical standards is entirely to misapprehend its purpose.
I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's observation in his preface to 'The Picture of Dorian Grey' (1890): 'There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all'
I wonder when I read reviews pointing out the problematics of a novel, whether the point is not that the readers were offended to the extent that it had to be mentioned in their review but rather it is like putting your pronouns in your Twitter bio. It is a statement of allegiance more than of real feeling.
Or, is it that should the reviewer not mention that they disagree with the opinions of the characters, or the writer, or the lack of representation of any particular minority; it will be interpreted as an agreement with the views of any and all characters as well as the author. It should be noted that the antecedents of the author are also important, as the British Library so helpfully pointed out, so readers of Byron, Wilde or Hughes not indicating in their review that they do not support slavery should be assumed to be in favour of it.
While I'm on the point, referring to an artist by their surname only is problematic as it 'discriminates against black or female composers who are called by their full names' . I should be reassuring and say that of course if you fail to mention that you are against the injustice in Pride and Prejudice of the Bennet sisters not inheriting you are tacitly supporting primogeniture. Not deploring the lack of black characters in The Great Gatsby, is an ominous silence that can only indicate secret feeling of white supremacy. By reading a novel that does not have any transgender or disabled characters, you are colluding in a conspiracy to silence these marginalised voices by reading a book that failed to represent them, and will be condemning yourself as a non-ally, a part of the oppressor class, especially if you read something by a heterosexual white man. Reading a work written in standard English is a mark against you, it ignores the demands of black linguistic justice by "using academic language and standard English as the accepted communicative norm, which reflects white mainstream English" and this "creates a climate of racialised inferiority toward Black Language and Black humanity.”
The only mitigation open for you, my dear phobic reviewer, is to restrict your reading to only books written either by or about ethnic or sexual minorities, preferably written in dialect. Should the western canon ever be read, as it should not be as the term classic is applied only to the patriarchal offerings of white men, it must be qualified by an assertion in your review that even though a Dickens novel has been read, you the reader, are fully aware of his privilege and racism and that his books are only popular because he is a man and his popularity among the working classes of the nineteenth century was only so that they could read reflections of their own misogyny and colonialism.
Reading as a performance of one's own virtue, does not impress me.
Saying what you really think is harder but you will feel better afterwards.
May 6, 2021
(إنه نوع من العبارات التي تبدو في غير محلها في صفحات رواية بائسة). لم تكن هذه كلمات عميل لبعض الأنظمة الشمولية ، بل كانت كلمات ضابط شرطة في المملكة المتحدة في عام 2019. اتصلت شرطة هامبرسايد بهاري ميلر ، وهو رجل أعمال يبلغ من العمر ثلاثة وخمسين عامًا وشرطي سابق. كان هناك شكوى من قبل طرف ما حول قصيدة شاركها على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي واعتبرت أنها تهين المتحولين جنسيا. أثناء المحادثة ، أوضح الضابط أنه على الرغم من أنه ليس غير قانوني ، إلا أن هذا يعتبر "حادث كراهية غير جنائي". وتساءل ميللر ، لماذا تم وصف المشتكي الذي لم يذكر اسمه بأنه "ضحية" إذا لم يتم ارتكاب أي جريمة؟ أكثر من ذلك ، لماذا تم التحقيق معه على الإطلاق؟ جاء الرد المشؤوم: "نحن بحاجة إلى التحقق من تفكيرك".
على مدار العقد الماضي ، اكتشف العديد من الأشخاص نمطًا من التغييرات الطفيفة في ثقافتنا ، نوعًا من إعادة التشكيل الجزئية التي تتعارض مع حقوقنا التي اكتسبناها بشق الأنفس في الاستقلال الشخصي. قضية ميلر ليست قضية منعزلة. بين عامي 2014 و 2019 ، سجلت قوات الشرطة في إنجلترا وويلز ما يقرب من 120 ألف "حادثة كراهية غير جنائية". لقد ترك هذا النوع من التطور عددًا كبيرًا منا يشعر وكأننا لم نعد على أرض آمنة ؛ الهزات مستمرة للغاية. على الرغم من أن "الحروب الثقافية" غالبًا ما يرفضها المعلقون باعتبارها ظاهرة مصطنعة ، إلا أنها مرتبطة ارتباطًا وثيقًا بهذا الشعور القاتل بأن شيئًا ما غير صحيح.
تعد تجربة ميللر واحدة من قصص عديدة تم فيها تجاهل مبدأ حرية التعبير من أجل ما يُنظر إليه على أنه أولوية اجتماعية أعلى.
يمكن تفسير الكثير من هذا من خلال تغيير جذري في موقف الجمهور من حرية التعبير ووظيفتها الرئيسية في مجتمع ليبرالي. جلب التصور الجديد القائم على الهوية لـ "العدالة الاجتماعية" عدم ثقة في الكلام غير المقيد والنداءات من أجل تدخل أكبر من الدولة. لقد تركنا أمام تلك الظاهرة المربكة والنادرة: «الاستبداد ذو النية الحسنة».
عندما يطالب أولئك الذين يتوقون إلى مجتمع أكثر عدلاً بالرقابة ، نجد أنفسنا عالقين في أرض غير مألوفة. كيف سنرد عندما يعتقد الأشخاص الذين يرغبون في حرماننا من حقوقنا أنهم يفعلون ذلك من أجل مصلحتنا؟
غالبًا ما يواجه المدافعون عن حرية التعبير اتهامًا بأننا ننغمس في مغالطة "المنحدر الزلق". قيل لنا إن الحالات العرضية لتجاوزات الدولة ليست مدعاة للقلق. ومع ذلك ، فإن فكرة إمكانية التحقيق مع مواطني المملكة المتحدة بسبب "عدم ارتكابهم جريمة" كانت تبدو غير متخيلة قبل عشرين عامًا. يحتاج المرء فقط إلى معرفة سريعة بتاريخ الاستبداد ليعرف أن مثل هذه الأنظمة لا تظهر بين عشية وضحاها. أنا لا أقترح بأي حال من الأحوال أننا نتحرك بحرية نحو مستقبل من معسكرات العمل والمحاكمات الميدانية ، ولكن يبدو أن هناك درجة عامة من اللامبال��ة التي لا تبشر بالخير فيما يتعلق بالحفاظ على حرياتنا الأساسية.
.
Andrew Doyle
Free Speech
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
على مدار العقد الماضي ، اكتشف العديد من الأشخاص نمطًا من التغييرات الطفيفة في ثقافتنا ، نوعًا من إعادة التشكيل الجزئية التي تتعارض مع حقوقنا التي اكتسبناها بشق الأنفس في الاستقلال الشخصي. قضية ميلر ليست قضية منعزلة. بين عامي 2014 و 2019 ، سجلت قوات الشرطة في إنجلترا وويلز ما يقرب من 120 ألف "حادثة كراهية غير جنائية". لقد ترك هذا النوع من التطور عددًا كبيرًا منا يشعر وكأننا لم نعد على أرض آمنة ؛ الهزات مستمرة للغاية. على الرغم من أن "الحروب الثقافية" غالبًا ما يرفضها المعلقون باعتبارها ظاهرة مصطنعة ، إلا أنها مرتبطة ارتباطًا وثيقًا بهذا الشعور القاتل بأن شيئًا ما غير صحيح.
تعد تجربة ميللر واحدة من قصص عديدة تم فيها تجاهل مبدأ حرية التعبير من أجل ما يُنظر إليه على أنه أولوية اجتماعية أعلى.
يمكن تفسير الكثير من هذا من خلال تغيير جذري في موقف الجمهور من حرية التعبير ووظيفتها الرئيسية في مجتمع ليبرالي. جلب التصور الجديد القائم على الهوية لـ "العدالة الاجتماعية" عدم ثقة في الكلام غير المقيد والنداءات من أجل تدخل أكبر من الدولة. لقد تركنا أمام تلك الظاهرة المربكة والنادرة: «الاستبداد ذو النية الحسنة».
عندما يطالب أولئك الذين يتوقون إلى مجتمع أكثر عدلاً بالرقابة ، نجد أنفسنا عالقين في أرض غير مألوفة. كيف سنرد عندما يعتقد الأشخاص الذين يرغبون في حرماننا من حقوقنا أنهم يفعلون ذلك من أجل مصلحتنا؟
غالبًا ما يواجه المدافعون عن حرية التعبير اتهامًا بأننا ننغمس في مغالطة "المنحدر الزلق". قيل لنا إن الحالات العرضية لتجاوزات الدولة ليست مدعاة للقلق. ومع ذلك ، فإن فكرة إمكانية التحقيق مع مواطني المملكة المتحدة بسبب "عدم ارتكابهم جريمة" كانت تبدو غير متخيلة قبل عشرين عامًا. يحتاج المرء فقط إلى معرفة سريعة بتاريخ الاستبداد ليعرف أن مثل هذه الأنظمة لا تظهر بين عشية وضحاها. أنا لا أقترح بأي حال من الأحوال أننا نتحرك بحرية نحو مستقبل من معسكرات العمل والمحاكمات الميدانية ، ولكن يبدو أن هناك درجة عامة من اللامبال��ة التي لا تبشر بالخير فيما يتعلق بالحفاظ على حرياتنا الأساسية.
.
Andrew Doyle
Free Speech
Translated By #Maher_Razouk
April 3, 2021
If you value democracy. If you prefer to live in a society such as that of Western-Europe, rather than that of China or Russia, then you should read this. This is not the rant of a right-wing’ extremist. This is a reasoned argument from a well-educated man.
We all need to read this.
We all need to talk about this: to our friends, our family, our neighbours. On the wall outside the BBC, it says, “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell.
I have a friend working as an editor for one of the broadsheets. His quote to me, “You mean the BBC?”
“Yes.”
“The Biased Broadcasting Company. The biggest hypocrites in this country. An organisation hell-bent on destroying free speech.”
He’s highly-intelligent, Oxbridge educated. Me, I’m a dullard.
What I do know is that many thousands gave their lives in the fight to preserve liberty, not too long ago.
We all need to read this.
We all need to talk about this: to our friends, our family, our neighbours. On the wall outside the BBC, it says, “If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell.
I have a friend working as an editor for one of the broadsheets. His quote to me, “You mean the BBC?”
“Yes.”
“The Biased Broadcasting Company. The biggest hypocrites in this country. An organisation hell-bent on destroying free speech.”
He’s highly-intelligent, Oxbridge educated. Me, I’m a dullard.
What I do know is that many thousands gave their lives in the fight to preserve liberty, not too long ago.
September 8, 2021
This is an incredibly timely work. Doyle's work is very short, but he packs a lot in a few pages. In very short chapters, he addresses different elements of free speech, objections that may be raised, and why everyone is better off when the marketplace of ideas is free. One of his main arguments is that while there are certainly many ideas that are abhorrent to us, when we push those ideas into the shadows, we often times but the problem worse than if we let them make their case and then disprove them publicly.
This book is obviously going to appeal to a certain audience, but I think it is a valuable read. At the very least, it should make you think about why free speech is precious.
This book is obviously going to appeal to a certain audience, but I think it is a valuable read. At the very least, it should make you think about why free speech is precious.
February 12, 2022
Much better than I was expecting - I only know Doyle as a comedian so wasn't expecting anything particularly robust.
A problem that I thought cropped up a couple of times though was that he didn't really acknowledge those grey areas where definitions start to break down. For instance, when talking about 'fake news' he overlooks the fact that news may be disputed by virtue of providing a partisan viewpoint but nonetheless remain truthful. No media can present a complete view of events so censoring falsehoods is not always straightforward.
A problem that I thought cropped up a couple of times though was that he didn't really acknowledge those grey areas where definitions start to break down. For instance, when talking about 'fake news' he overlooks the fact that news may be disputed by virtue of providing a partisan viewpoint but nonetheless remain truthful. No media can present a complete view of events so censoring falsehoods is not always straightforward.
July 21, 2021
Essential reading and a reminder that this fundamental freedom is worth fighting for at the first signs of its erosion. Free speech is the bedrock of all other freedoms and all too easy to take for granted.
February 20, 2022
slim, effective volume that shouldn't need to be written but definitely needed to be, lolz.
July 16, 2023
Libro molto breve che riporta con ordine tutte le ragioni per cui è meglio una società in cui è concessa a tutti, nessuno escluso, la possibilità di esprimersi, rispetto a una in cui invece, per motivi magari molto diversi tra loro (culturali, sociali, religiosi...), lo Stato mette pali e paletti su ciò che è lecito dire in pubblico e in privato.
Il libro sconta tuttavia due difetti.
Il primo è che si concentra quasi solo, se non solo, sulle pressioni che vengono da sinistra per restringere la libertà d'espressione. È vero che sono quelle che oggi fanno più rumore, forse anche perché provenienti da una parte politica che, a torto o a ragione, si ritiene sia stata storicamente immune a certe pulsioni o, meglio, perché per decennî la sinistra ha sostenuto la libertà di esprimersi ed emergere nel discorso pubblico di determinate minoranze (etniche, sessuali, di genere) storicamente escluse da esso, quindi fa specie che ora che l'emancipazione sta avvenendo si chiedano interventi di segno contrario, questa volta contro gli avversarî. Eppure non bisogna tacere che, soprattutto negli Stati Uniti, esistono forti volontà censorie che vengono ancora da destra e che proprio con queste, per una certa qual ironia visto che attualmente molta destra brandisce (in gran parte strumentalmente) la bandiera della "libertà dal politicamente corretto", dovremo fare i conti prossimamente, visto che è proprio la destra, ormai anche quella estrema, ad avere uno slancio fortissimo nelle urne di quasi tutti i paesi liberal-democratici.
Il secondo punto è la questione dei social network, visto che l'autore ritiene che questi non debbano avere la libertà di moderare i contenuti degli utenti come più aggrada loro. In pratica per l'autore lo Stato dovrebbe avere il diritto di intervenire sui social network per impedire loro di escludere determinati utenti o determinate idee. Per dirla grossolanamente, una sorta di legge sulla par condicio televisiva applicata a internet. Secondo me qui l'autore sbaglia alla grande, visto che non tiene conto della fondamentale differenza che esiste tra la censura pubblica e quella privata: se è lo Stato a impedire a Pinco Pallo di esprimere l'opinione X, questi non potrà più farlo in alcun modo, ma se a impedirlo è Twitter o Facebook, a Pinco Pallo rimarranno comunque altri mezzi con cui potrà farsi sentire. Prendiamo il caso di Trump, per un periodo escluso da Twitter e Facebook. Se fossi stato io a dirigere Facebook o Twitter forse non avrei bannato Trump, ma ritengo comunque che i social network debbano avere il diritto di farlo, se così vogliono. Trump ha potuto anche in seguito continuato a dire la sua, arrivando persino a fondare un proprio social network concorrente, a dimostrazione che né Twitter né Facebook sono (per fortuna) onnipotenti. Mi stupisce che l'autore, che pure ripete più volte che è pericoloso dare allo Stato il potere di controllare per legge le parole dei cittadini perché oggi magari questo potere viene usato "bene" ma domani chissà, non si renda conto che lo stesso vale per l'imposizione dall'alto di regole di moderazione vincolanti per tutta internet, quando invece sarebbe più sensato che ogni realtà on-line possa gestirsi come meglio crede e siano poi gli utenti a decidere a quale affidarsi.
Da ultimo il libro ha un grande merito, che spesso sfugge a molte delle discussioni su politicamente corretto, cancel culture e via dicendo. Queste ultime si concentrano esclusivamente sui movimenti sociali e sui tentativi informali di zittire le persone, tentativi che provengono dal basso, ma ignorano quasi completamente le varie leggi che, dall'alto e un po' alla volta, ora portate avanti da governi di sinistra, ora da governi di destra, in diversi paesi, vanno a restringere la possibilità di esprimersi, ovviamente con le ottime intenzioni di "combattere l'odio", "difendere i più vulnerabili", "contrastare le fake news", "scoraggiare la polarizzazione", e via dicendo. L'autore, che è britannico, riporta diversi esempî dal Regno Unito, ad esempio persone visitate e investigate dalla polizia non per aver commesso un reato, ma per aver detto cose legali ma discutibili in rete (i cosiddetti "non-crime hate incident"), e si tratta di migliaia di persone l'anno. Più che le folle fanatizzate di Twitter (su cui comunque va certo fatta una riflessione), forse è proprio una deriva legislativa in senso oppressivo che dovrebbe primariamente inquietare, proprio perché sta passando sottotraccia nel dibattito pubblico.
Il libro sconta tuttavia due difetti.
Il primo è che si concentra quasi solo, se non solo, sulle pressioni che vengono da sinistra per restringere la libertà d'espressione. È vero che sono quelle che oggi fanno più rumore, forse anche perché provenienti da una parte politica che, a torto o a ragione, si ritiene sia stata storicamente immune a certe pulsioni o, meglio, perché per decennî la sinistra ha sostenuto la libertà di esprimersi ed emergere nel discorso pubblico di determinate minoranze (etniche, sessuali, di genere) storicamente escluse da esso, quindi fa specie che ora che l'emancipazione sta avvenendo si chiedano interventi di segno contrario, questa volta contro gli avversarî. Eppure non bisogna tacere che, soprattutto negli Stati Uniti, esistono forti volontà censorie che vengono ancora da destra e che proprio con queste, per una certa qual ironia visto che attualmente molta destra brandisce (in gran parte strumentalmente) la bandiera della "libertà dal politicamente corretto", dovremo fare i conti prossimamente, visto che è proprio la destra, ormai anche quella estrema, ad avere uno slancio fortissimo nelle urne di quasi tutti i paesi liberal-democratici.
Il secondo punto è la questione dei social network, visto che l'autore ritiene che questi non debbano avere la libertà di moderare i contenuti degli utenti come più aggrada loro. In pratica per l'autore lo Stato dovrebbe avere il diritto di intervenire sui social network per impedire loro di escludere determinati utenti o determinate idee. Per dirla grossolanamente, una sorta di legge sulla par condicio televisiva applicata a internet. Secondo me qui l'autore sbaglia alla grande, visto che non tiene conto della fondamentale differenza che esiste tra la censura pubblica e quella privata: se è lo Stato a impedire a Pinco Pallo di esprimere l'opinione X, questi non potrà più farlo in alcun modo, ma se a impedirlo è Twitter o Facebook, a Pinco Pallo rimarranno comunque altri mezzi con cui potrà farsi sentire. Prendiamo il caso di Trump, per un periodo escluso da Twitter e Facebook. Se fossi stato io a dirigere Facebook o Twitter forse non avrei bannato Trump, ma ritengo comunque che i social network debbano avere il diritto di farlo, se così vogliono. Trump ha potuto anche in seguito continuato a dire la sua, arrivando persino a fondare un proprio social network concorrente, a dimostrazione che né Twitter né Facebook sono (per fortuna) onnipotenti. Mi stupisce che l'autore, che pure ripete più volte che è pericoloso dare allo Stato il potere di controllare per legge le parole dei cittadini perché oggi magari questo potere viene usato "bene" ma domani chissà, non si renda conto che lo stesso vale per l'imposizione dall'alto di regole di moderazione vincolanti per tutta internet, quando invece sarebbe più sensato che ogni realtà on-line possa gestirsi come meglio crede e siano poi gli utenti a decidere a quale affidarsi.
Da ultimo il libro ha un grande merito, che spesso sfugge a molte delle discussioni su politicamente corretto, cancel culture e via dicendo. Queste ultime si concentrano esclusivamente sui movimenti sociali e sui tentativi informali di zittire le persone, tentativi che provengono dal basso, ma ignorano quasi completamente le varie leggi che, dall'alto e un po' alla volta, ora portate avanti da governi di sinistra, ora da governi di destra, in diversi paesi, vanno a restringere la possibilità di esprimersi, ovviamente con le ottime intenzioni di "combattere l'odio", "difendere i più vulnerabili", "contrastare le fake news", "scoraggiare la polarizzazione", e via dicendo. L'autore, che è britannico, riporta diversi esempî dal Regno Unito, ad esempio persone visitate e investigate dalla polizia non per aver commesso un reato, ma per aver detto cose legali ma discutibili in rete (i cosiddetti "non-crime hate incident"), e si tratta di migliaia di persone l'anno. Più che le folle fanatizzate di Twitter (su cui comunque va certo fatta una riflessione), forse è proprio una deriva legislativa in senso oppressivo che dovrebbe primariamente inquietare, proprio perché sta passando sottotraccia nel dibattito pubblico.
January 2, 2025
Common misapprehensions about free speech
- The “You can’t say anything anymore” hyperbole
- The fallacy of demanding to be heard, also known as the “Why are you criticizing this person? I thought you supported free speech.” Mistaking criticism for censorship “the right to speak and listen also entails the right not to speak or listen.”
- The fallacy of guilt by association or implying that free speech is, in itself, racist and/or sexist: The suppression of unpopular speech does not prevent the root issue.
On taking offense
Encouraging the assumption of good faith as opposed to the bad faith fallacy.
The potential for meaningful conversation can be achieved through what Doyle calls “generosity of interpretation”, that is the art of valuing dialogue over emotional comfort and conflict-aversion.
Because offense is inevitable, and emotional and intellectual discomfort is part of the human experience; the reader is encouraged to resist the urge to “overdiagnose” their emotional pain into a mental illness or a form of trauma.
“(…) if the source of our offense is a general discomfort that others do not behave or speak in accordance with our own specific values, we are engaging in a kind of solipsism that is best avoided, not least because there is no end to the endeavor.”
The Overton Window
- “The Overton window is the range of policies voters will find acceptable.” The New Statesman
- “The Overton window of political possibility is the range of ideas the public is willing to consider and accept.” Conceptually.org
On comedy and satire
“The history books are littered with the corpses of satirists who have tickled a few too many delicate nerves.”
On the dangers of self-censorship
Self-censorship is the outcome of cancel culture; it is one of the most extreme forms of censorship and could result in the creation of an artificial reality. An artist will tend to want to avoid the risk of social exclusion or punishment at the expense of artistic and intellectual authenticity, in order to ensure the “commercial viability” of their work.
The most prominent example is perhaps the ‘preference falsification’ phenomenon, or the act of misrepresenting one’s own personal preferences due to perceived political pressures, that is, to avoid any form of social or political stigma.
The impact of preference falsification is not limited to artistic and literary endeavors, as it spills over the fields of academic freedom and innovation as well. We are thus encouraged to practice ‘moral courage’ instead of staying within the confines of intellectual safety and political correctness.
In this sense, courageous self-expression is considered to be the means to cultivate and maintain the artistic wellbeing of society.
On language
By interpreting words as violence and equating perceived emotional pain to physical harm, we risk encouraging reactions to the source of our offense which are actually violent in nature, simply because said speech contradicts our personal values. This means that, in our quest to suppress a given message, we encounter the risk of amplifying it.
This is called experiencing an identity quake, which is “the emotional reaction that follows from having one’s core values disrupted” (Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay)
“(…) and it seems to me that we deny ourselves the opportunity for growth when we refuse to interrogate our own certainty. It is intellectual suicide in slow motion.”
- The “You can’t say anything anymore” hyperbole
- The fallacy of demanding to be heard, also known as the “Why are you criticizing this person? I thought you supported free speech.” Mistaking criticism for censorship “the right to speak and listen also entails the right not to speak or listen.”
- The fallacy of guilt by association or implying that free speech is, in itself, racist and/or sexist: The suppression of unpopular speech does not prevent the root issue.
On taking offense
Encouraging the assumption of good faith as opposed to the bad faith fallacy.
The potential for meaningful conversation can be achieved through what Doyle calls “generosity of interpretation”, that is the art of valuing dialogue over emotional comfort and conflict-aversion.
Because offense is inevitable, and emotional and intellectual discomfort is part of the human experience; the reader is encouraged to resist the urge to “overdiagnose” their emotional pain into a mental illness or a form of trauma.
“(…) if the source of our offense is a general discomfort that others do not behave or speak in accordance with our own specific values, we are engaging in a kind of solipsism that is best avoided, not least because there is no end to the endeavor.”
The Overton Window
- “The Overton window is the range of policies voters will find acceptable.” The New Statesman
- “The Overton window of political possibility is the range of ideas the public is willing to consider and accept.” Conceptually.org
On comedy and satire
“The history books are littered with the corpses of satirists who have tickled a few too many delicate nerves.”
On the dangers of self-censorship
Self-censorship is the outcome of cancel culture; it is one of the most extreme forms of censorship and could result in the creation of an artificial reality. An artist will tend to want to avoid the risk of social exclusion or punishment at the expense of artistic and intellectual authenticity, in order to ensure the “commercial viability” of their work.
The most prominent example is perhaps the ‘preference falsification’ phenomenon, or the act of misrepresenting one’s own personal preferences due to perceived political pressures, that is, to avoid any form of social or political stigma.
The impact of preference falsification is not limited to artistic and literary endeavors, as it spills over the fields of academic freedom and innovation as well. We are thus encouraged to practice ‘moral courage’ instead of staying within the confines of intellectual safety and political correctness.
In this sense, courageous self-expression is considered to be the means to cultivate and maintain the artistic wellbeing of society.
On language
By interpreting words as violence and equating perceived emotional pain to physical harm, we risk encouraging reactions to the source of our offense which are actually violent in nature, simply because said speech contradicts our personal values. This means that, in our quest to suppress a given message, we encounter the risk of amplifying it.
This is called experiencing an identity quake, which is “the emotional reaction that follows from having one’s core values disrupted” (Peter Boghossian and James A. Lindsay)
“(…) and it seems to me that we deny ourselves the opportunity for growth when we refuse to interrogate our own certainty. It is intellectual suicide in slow motion.”
April 29, 2023
This is a timely book: a contemporary plea for a renewed understanding of what is undoubtedly a cornerstone of liberal society - freedom of speech. Many debates about freedom of speech are inhibited by the fact that the notion’s clearest explanations were given in the 18th Century, a time many people of today view with legitimate suspicion.
I agree with the author that freedom of speech is vital and I agree that upholding freedom of speech means that everyone has the freedom to express opinions that may be abhorrent.
However I do not agree with the author that freedom of speech is absolute. Like all freedoms, an individual’s freedom ends where another individual’s freedom begins. It’s very simple. Holding an abhorrent opinion constitutes freedom of speech. Disseminating harmful lies, calling for harm to be done to others, does not constitute freedom of speech. When your opinions affect more than yourself, you engage social responsibility. That is the case in all aspects of life in society, not just speech. Freedom of speech holds a special place in our communicative society, but it is no different than other human rights. Being in society necessary imposes limits. This is not a new interpretation imposed by a new intolerant indentitarianism. This is how all human rights have been conceived from the outset.
On that point, I fundamentally disagree with the author’s view that the world is on the cusp of a “woke”, identity-politics led, repression of freedom of speech. The world has greater freedom of speech today than it has ever had. There are so many avenues and platforms for communication - the author actually decries social media for allowing so many to say so much to such a wide audience. I don’t agree that identity politics is a new phenomenon either. It is old fashioned tribalism, expressed in society in so many ways, from politics and religion through to sport and fashion, and yes, now other social issues of a wide spectrum.
The only thing that is new is that there are many more tribes that can raise their voices now, who were previously silenced by state, church, establishment, society, etc, and this proliferation of unfamiliar voices is increasingly difficult for some to understand. The anger in these newly liberated voices might surprise, but it is not new either: history is full of such flashpoints. There is nothing new to the competition between viewpoints today, only the sheer number of players in the field. Those who were accustomed to only having to navigate a few vociferous points of view, are now buffeted by the sheer number and variety of possible reactions to what they may have to say.
This much is particularly apparent in this quote: “It is only when speech is met with threats, censorship, defamation, harassment, intimidation, violence or police investigation that freedom becomes compromised. These are the tools of cancel culture.”
No. These are the tools that the majority uses to oppress minorities, and has done for centuries and continues to do *today* (on the day of writing the front page of the Daily Mail was demanding that Gary Lineker be silenced for daring suggest the chair of the BBC should not be appointed by the government of the day). This is the behaviour of the powerful, of the establishment, of the privileged, and has always been, which this author states *again and again* throughout the book when referring to the oppressors of past ages, e.g. the Church and despotic monarchs. The right-wing press refers repeatedly to those who opposed Brexit (a matter close to my heart) as “traitors” and “enemies of the people”. This is not free speech. This is an unmistakable call for violence.
(The author’s rejection of the notion of hate speech by conflating incitement to violence with the media hysteria over the corrupting effect of video nasties is particularly weak. So is his argument that “hate” speech is a new and subjective moral standard - as exactly the same can be said of the “reasonable man” standard that has been the foundation of Common Law for centuries.)
It is ironic for the author to state that “PC” or “woke” standards force conservatives to self-censure in a climate of fear, when for centuries that has been the fate of “deviants” from the conservative norm. The oppressed have learnt well from the oppressors and use their tactics adapted to new social media technology.
It is also hugely ironic for the author to state that progress is only made when dissenters are heard. Dissenters are being heard: they’re the “woke” ones calling out injustice. The author seems to take the view that debates are closed as soon as they have begun: because British society now vocally opposes racism does not mean that racism no longer exists or that it is inappropriate to call out racism - or any other intolerance. But the author seems to take the view that calling out oppression is counter productive, once the aspiration of eliminating oppression is widely accepted. That “mission accomplished” approach is just a way to silence the oppressed by snatching causes away from those who champion them. Declaring the end of history is a deep fallacy of neo-liberalism. History continues and repeats itself as it always has. The author clearly takes the view that freedom of speech has been secured in liberal society and is newly under threat. This is a complete fallacy. Freedom of speech has never been other than a work in progress. Some sections of society have been closer than others to enjoying it. But it has never been granted to all.
It is sad to note this author’s utter blindness to his own position of privilege, pretending that “cancel culture” and the “woke” movement is doing anything different at all than what the supposedly liberal establishment has been doing since the inception of liberalism. His comments concerning “lived experience” are particularly ironic. He denies that ours is a repressive society, and alleges that anyone whose “lived experience” is different is advancing fallacious anecdotal evidence. No. For some, our liberal society is as oppressive as they say it is. And it has been for centuries.
What is happening today is a rebalancing of *power*. The alleged perpetuators of “cancel culture” have recently acquired power and are using it as demonstrated by the very fact that the media - perfect weathervanes of power - now see “woke” purchasing power overtake the old guard that is allegedly being “cancelled”. It’s not for nothing that brands are taking sides, choosing who it will cost them the least to upset. No-one is forcing media outlets to deplatform abhorrent views. These outlets are merely choosing to please a more lucrative audience. They are choosing the future over the past, in a very rational way.
What we are seeing is the fragmentation of a previously homogeneous establishment that violently repressed all “deviants” into a multitude of new competing establishments, a multi polar world.
In this world, freedom of speech is indeed absolutely vital as oppression can come from many different sources, not only from the obvious, traditional power players.
Maybe I’m missing the point here. The author condemns all constrictions on freedom of speech whether they are from government, from the majority in society, or from vocal minorities. Inasmuch I totally agree.
Where I disagree - fundamentally - is in the author’s assertion that the new “woke” forms of constrictions of freedom of speech are in anyway more pernicious than those perpetrated by supposedly liberal society. No. The “woke” movement is a *tiny* rebellion against the oppressive behemoth of supposedly liberal society. It’s very existence demonstrates that freedom of speech works. The oppressed are just about managing to be heard and the oppressors are embarrassed by being caught out.
This is an important book, with lots of good elements. But it has an incoherent, self-contradictory agenda. Hence two stars.
I agree with the author that freedom of speech is vital and I agree that upholding freedom of speech means that everyone has the freedom to express opinions that may be abhorrent.
However I do not agree with the author that freedom of speech is absolute. Like all freedoms, an individual’s freedom ends where another individual’s freedom begins. It’s very simple. Holding an abhorrent opinion constitutes freedom of speech. Disseminating harmful lies, calling for harm to be done to others, does not constitute freedom of speech. When your opinions affect more than yourself, you engage social responsibility. That is the case in all aspects of life in society, not just speech. Freedom of speech holds a special place in our communicative society, but it is no different than other human rights. Being in society necessary imposes limits. This is not a new interpretation imposed by a new intolerant indentitarianism. This is how all human rights have been conceived from the outset.
On that point, I fundamentally disagree with the author’s view that the world is on the cusp of a “woke”, identity-politics led, repression of freedom of speech. The world has greater freedom of speech today than it has ever had. There are so many avenues and platforms for communication - the author actually decries social media for allowing so many to say so much to such a wide audience. I don’t agree that identity politics is a new phenomenon either. It is old fashioned tribalism, expressed in society in so many ways, from politics and religion through to sport and fashion, and yes, now other social issues of a wide spectrum.
The only thing that is new is that there are many more tribes that can raise their voices now, who were previously silenced by state, church, establishment, society, etc, and this proliferation of unfamiliar voices is increasingly difficult for some to understand. The anger in these newly liberated voices might surprise, but it is not new either: history is full of such flashpoints. There is nothing new to the competition between viewpoints today, only the sheer number of players in the field. Those who were accustomed to only having to navigate a few vociferous points of view, are now buffeted by the sheer number and variety of possible reactions to what they may have to say.
This much is particularly apparent in this quote: “It is only when speech is met with threats, censorship, defamation, harassment, intimidation, violence or police investigation that freedom becomes compromised. These are the tools of cancel culture.”
No. These are the tools that the majority uses to oppress minorities, and has done for centuries and continues to do *today* (on the day of writing the front page of the Daily Mail was demanding that Gary Lineker be silenced for daring suggest the chair of the BBC should not be appointed by the government of the day). This is the behaviour of the powerful, of the establishment, of the privileged, and has always been, which this author states *again and again* throughout the book when referring to the oppressors of past ages, e.g. the Church and despotic monarchs. The right-wing press refers repeatedly to those who opposed Brexit (a matter close to my heart) as “traitors” and “enemies of the people”. This is not free speech. This is an unmistakable call for violence.
(The author’s rejection of the notion of hate speech by conflating incitement to violence with the media hysteria over the corrupting effect of video nasties is particularly weak. So is his argument that “hate” speech is a new and subjective moral standard - as exactly the same can be said of the “reasonable man” standard that has been the foundation of Common Law for centuries.)
It is ironic for the author to state that “PC” or “woke” standards force conservatives to self-censure in a climate of fear, when for centuries that has been the fate of “deviants” from the conservative norm. The oppressed have learnt well from the oppressors and use their tactics adapted to new social media technology.
It is also hugely ironic for the author to state that progress is only made when dissenters are heard. Dissenters are being heard: they’re the “woke” ones calling out injustice. The author seems to take the view that debates are closed as soon as they have begun: because British society now vocally opposes racism does not mean that racism no longer exists or that it is inappropriate to call out racism - or any other intolerance. But the author seems to take the view that calling out oppression is counter productive, once the aspiration of eliminating oppression is widely accepted. That “mission accomplished” approach is just a way to silence the oppressed by snatching causes away from those who champion them. Declaring the end of history is a deep fallacy of neo-liberalism. History continues and repeats itself as it always has. The author clearly takes the view that freedom of speech has been secured in liberal society and is newly under threat. This is a complete fallacy. Freedom of speech has never been other than a work in progress. Some sections of society have been closer than others to enjoying it. But it has never been granted to all.
It is sad to note this author’s utter blindness to his own position of privilege, pretending that “cancel culture” and the “woke” movement is doing anything different at all than what the supposedly liberal establishment has been doing since the inception of liberalism. His comments concerning “lived experience” are particularly ironic. He denies that ours is a repressive society, and alleges that anyone whose “lived experience” is different is advancing fallacious anecdotal evidence. No. For some, our liberal society is as oppressive as they say it is. And it has been for centuries.
What is happening today is a rebalancing of *power*. The alleged perpetuators of “cancel culture” have recently acquired power and are using it as demonstrated by the very fact that the media - perfect weathervanes of power - now see “woke” purchasing power overtake the old guard that is allegedly being “cancelled”. It’s not for nothing that brands are taking sides, choosing who it will cost them the least to upset. No-one is forcing media outlets to deplatform abhorrent views. These outlets are merely choosing to please a more lucrative audience. They are choosing the future over the past, in a very rational way.
What we are seeing is the fragmentation of a previously homogeneous establishment that violently repressed all “deviants” into a multitude of new competing establishments, a multi polar world.
In this world, freedom of speech is indeed absolutely vital as oppression can come from many different sources, not only from the obvious, traditional power players.
Maybe I’m missing the point here. The author condemns all constrictions on freedom of speech whether they are from government, from the majority in society, or from vocal minorities. Inasmuch I totally agree.
Where I disagree - fundamentally - is in the author’s assertion that the new “woke” forms of constrictions of freedom of speech are in anyway more pernicious than those perpetrated by supposedly liberal society. No. The “woke” movement is a *tiny* rebellion against the oppressive behemoth of supposedly liberal society. It’s very existence demonstrates that freedom of speech works. The oppressed are just about managing to be heard and the oppressors are embarrassed by being caught out.
This is an important book, with lots of good elements. But it has an incoherent, self-contradictory agenda. Hence two stars.
March 26, 2021
An important little book.
September 23, 2023
I'm giving it 4 stars because I think the author has made his points clearer in his other works.
However, due to its shorter length and narrow focus, I would still recommend this book to anyone interested in free speech, or curious as to why it is necessery to defend it.
However, due to its shorter length and narrow focus, I would still recommend this book to anyone interested in free speech, or curious as to why it is necessery to defend it.
April 6, 2025
Very unfortunately, nothing has improved on this matter.
September 12, 2023
"Debate is not, as some have asserted, a ‘fetish’. It is the means by which we forestall the closing of our minds. We argue to refine our point of view, to challenge our certainties, and to persuade others when we feel that they are misguided. In order to do this, we must be able to understand our opponent’s perspective, and not satisfy ourselves with crude misrepresentations. Above all, we argue because we know, even when we are not willing to admit, that there is always the possibility that we might be wrong. We are not infallible, and we can be sure that much of the received wisdom of the present will be derided by our descendants."
February 25, 2021
A short (very short: the main text ends at 55% of the ebook) run-through of arguments in favour of free speech, arguing that protecting the free speech of our political enemies is a key part of protecting our own free speech. Not funny like his Titania McGrath books, but it makes its point.
July 21, 2021
Everyone should read this, especially at a time when free speech is undervalued and cast as some right wing tool of oppression. For anyone who believes that compelled speech is purely a kindness, that you should be cajoled into believing 2+2=5, and that police should turn up on your doorstep to merely “check your thinking” before recording a non-crime hate-crime, perhaps it’s time to think where these things can lead; history is a good indicator.
June 10, 2025
This book is more like a collection of articles/short essay. This allows other problems to come through. He fails to define his terms or properly engage with the range of ideas within the liberal tradition concerning free speech. There is a failure to properly confront the arguments his opponents are making, he even doesn’t acknowledge conter arguments . The evidence to support his position is not interrogated in the main text (by himself or another party). There are cracks form in his arguments that are inconsistencies and needs to be addressed, but he doesn’t, he is so scarred of disagreement that he can't write honestly we can feel a sort of blockage within his way of thinking and what he is writing. Despite his list of sources, he knows very little about the situations he discusses, and he twists the facts in order to push his narrative. For example, he claims that J.K. Rowling isn't a transphobe. That she's just simply stating biological fact and supporting women's rights. But, he leaves out the fact that Rowling has praised a woman who accused the trans community of being perverts, tweeted articles that portray trans people as a threat, promoted a store that sells anti-trans merch. In vein, I do not believe this book portrayed the real free speech mouvement and it’s poorly executed.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 105 reviews