Free Speech And Why It Matters
- Downloads：9970
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-06-22 09:53:53
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Andrew Doyle
- ISBN：0349135371
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Reviews
Laurie Elliot
，
Very short but very important book。 Listened to it twice on Audible and than bought it on Kindle。
Tristan
，
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 t 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。 。。。more
Ryan Winfield
，
This short book almost belongs， both in length and in content， to the dead art of pamphleteering。 That said， it's an easily read reminder of the importance of the classically liberal belief in free speech， with a great bibliography almost longer than the main text。 This short book almost belongs， both in length and in content， to the dead art of pamphleteering。 That said， it's an easily read reminder of the importance of the classically liberal belief in free speech， with a great bibliography almost longer than the main text。 。。。more
Antonio
，
Outstanding and insightful， well written and a must read for any person interested in politics or democracy
Louie B
，
This should be required reading at some undergraduate level course， or maybe even before then。 Free speech， public discourse， debates， conversations amongst peers or friends - whatever we want to call it - is the only thing we have to move us forward。 In my estimation， it’s all there ever has been。 Wars have been failures of diplomacy， or conversations。 Science has been the progress of sharing ideas。 Technology， culture， morality， likewise。 Protecting speech has never been more important， especi This should be required reading at some undergraduate level course， or maybe even before then。 Free speech， public discourse， debates， conversations amongst peers or friends - whatever we want to call it - is the only thing we have to move us forward。 In my estimation， it’s all there ever has been。 Wars have been failures of diplomacy， or conversations。 Science has been the progress of sharing ideas。 Technology， culture， morality， likewise。 Protecting speech has never been more important， especially from it’s unlikely and mostly hypocritical or ironic detractors。 This short book sums up the talking points in the most eloquent and digestible manner。 It is the antidote to the chaos we now see among free speech conversations。 。。。more
Katie
，
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 outfit 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-pickingLike 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 neededStatements 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 naïvetéA 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？ 。。。more
Bob
，
slim， effective volume that shouldn't need to be written but definitely needed to be， lolz。 slim， effective volume that shouldn't need to be written but definitely needed to be， lolz。 。。。more
Chris Hall
，
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 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。 。。。more
zihinsel
，
I loved this book！ I love Andrew Doyle， not to mention Titania McGrath （Google it if you don't know who that is， you won't regret it！） Not many original arguments to be honest on why free speech matters， but I loved it particularly because it tells about many current issues， from JK Rowling being canceled to the stupid college protests across the UK and the US。 In that sense it's quite contributory， helping understand the situations and the circumstances we're actually in。 He's a free speech abs I loved this book！ I love Andrew Doyle， not to mention Titania McGrath （Google it if you don't know who that is， you won't regret it！） Not many original arguments to be honest on why free speech matters， but I loved it particularly because it tells about many current issues， from JK Rowling being canceled to the stupid college protests across the UK and the US。 In that sense it's quite contributory， helping understand the situations and the circumstances we're actually in。 He's a free speech absolutist， which makes his points more logical than those of many others on the issue。 Would recommend as an introduction to free speech debate。 。。。more
Margaret Grant
，
Well researched， well written and very timely。
Pogue
，
I read books to be informed。 Especially I read books which may hold views I support only weakly or not at all。 I do not read books to shore up an existing opinion and am frequently amused at thinking as I read that the writer is saying things or expounding views I wish I had thought of myself。 I found the comments and views of other readers of this book almost as interesting as the book itself。
Tim G
，
3。5 stars This is a short， relevant discussion providing illumination of the current trends towards free speech。 There is much to be gained and to build awareness of this powerful mechanism which is continually being threatened through the current age。I quite enjoyed the approach of a book to have a short and sharp discussion to deliver a just in time education， and substantiated by relevance。 The chapters are simple， yet effective chronological approach and I most enjoyed the self censoring art 3。5 stars This is a short， relevant discussion providing illumination of the current trends towards free speech。 There is much to be gained and to build awareness of this powerful mechanism which is continually being threatened through the current age。I quite enjoyed the approach of a book to have a short and sharp discussion to deliver a just in time education， and substantiated by relevance。 The chapters are simple， yet effective chronological approach and I most enjoyed the self censoring artist chapter with quotes including: ‘Those in powerful positions in the creative industries tend to appease the tantrums of those who scream the loudest。 Once artists begin tailoring their work in accordance to how they sense it will be perceived， their craft is bound to deteriorate。 ‘The best artists are non conformists， which should cultivate a world where creative risks are worth taking。 ‘If you feel free speech is being undermined， or admire those in the public space who demonstrate free speech， I feel this book will be of benefit。 Either way， there is a knowledge enhancement to be had with this book and an important increase of awareness。 。。。more
Dugy
，
An important book on the subject for those who are not familiar with the arguments both against and for free speech。
Justin Norman
，
This is going to be a fairly straightforward and dry read for many including myself， but given how frequently free speech is being questioned as a good thing， I understand why making a new case for it in a modern context felt necessary。 The book contains none of the author's typical humor， but it's a worthwhile read for those unfamiliar with the arguments around the issue。 This is going to be a fairly straightforward and dry read for many including myself， but given how frequently free speech is being questioned as a good thing， I understand why making a new case for it in a modern context felt necessary。 The book contains none of the author's typical humor， but it's a worthwhile read for those unfamiliar with the arguments around the issue。 。。。more
Rui Jarimba
，
Short but straight to the point。 Mandatory reading in 2021。
Victoria Emerson
，
‘Free speech is the marrow of democracy。 Unless we are able to speak out minds we cannot innovate， or even begin to make sense of the world。’ Whether you’re left or right leaning or simply in between， this book is important particularly considering the current state of affairs。
simon crossley
，
Early on Andrew Doyle sets out how the definition of social justice has changed due to a new identity-based conceptualisation bringing with it a mistrust of unfettered speech。 He goes on to point out how this has given us the confusing and rare phenomenon: the well-intentioned authoritarian。 With authoritarianism comes censorship – or as it has now been termed – cancellation。Andrew Doyle gives the example of the hate crime issue in the UK that can lead to an individual having a police record wit Early on Andrew Doyle sets out how the definition of social justice has changed due to a new identity-based conceptualisation bringing with it a mistrust of unfettered speech。 He goes on to point out how this has given us the confusing and rare phenomenon: the well-intentioned authoritarian。 With authoritarianism comes censorship – or as it has now been termed – cancellation。Andrew Doyle gives the example of the hate crime issue in the UK that can lead to an individual having a police record without recourse to defence。 The Big Brotherish phrase uttered by the police “we need to check your thinking” raises questions about the direction of police resources。In spite of the cogent arguments there are no real deep dives into the different areas and human stories。 This left me with the feeling the book is not that far away from a collection of the articles he occasionally writes for The Critic。 The book finishes early as there are extensive journalistic references。That said this book is an important contribution to balance the debate and raises the need for more debate around the impact of cancel culture on people’s lives。 An update to this book is already writing itself – the rebellion by members of the National Trust against the claim of a “woke takeover”， the backlash against Stonewall by state departments because of its interpretation of equalities legislation， the introduction of legislation to require free speech and academic freedom in higher education， and the government sponsored report into racism in the UK。 。。。more
Zak Schmoll
，
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 disprov 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。 。。。more
Sandra
，
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。
Mikael
，
As a beautiful homage to the people who made sacrifices， sometimes the ultimate one， this short and sharp book is about the clear and present danger we now face as authoritarianism shows its ugly face everywhere。 Wherever it is the authoritarian right or the authoritarian left that trample on our free speech to force us all into submission， it is always right to fight against the ways of limiting our possibility to think freely， even if it is awful and wrong。 A society that restricts speech to m As a beautiful homage to the people who made sacrifices， sometimes the ultimate one， this short and sharp book is about the clear and present danger we now face as authoritarianism shows its ugly face everywhere。 Wherever it is the authoritarian right or the authoritarian left that trample on our free speech to force us all into submission， it is always right to fight against the ways of limiting our possibility to think freely， even if it is awful and wrong。 A society that restricts speech to match someone's taste will end up killing people because they dare to think freely。 Today we see this from the authoritarian left， forcing us closer to the brink of fascism。 We now need people like Andrew Doyle to hold the light for the liberal ideas that give the people on the fringes the right to express their despicable ideas about forcing people into submission。 。。。more
RE
，
Short and sweet。 It does exactly what the title describes。 The pro: it is easy to read and snappy。 The con: it lacks deep reflection in many cases。 But， I think this is an excellent book for someone interested in accessing the topic and understanding the nature of the modern threat against free speech in the West。
Eddie
，
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 p 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。 。。。more
Derek Boyes
，
Andrew Doyle lays out in clear， concise chapters， why free speech matters， covering everything from its definition， when and why it came into being and its imperative underpinning to any liberal democratic society。He addresses the many misconceptions spread by poor politics， journalism and social media， while fearlessly negating the radical left's common arguments against free speech， in a balanced and respectful tone。For anyone who genuinely seeks knowledge over belief， this is an excellent int Andrew Doyle lays out in clear， concise chapters， why free speech matters， covering everything from its definition， when and why it came into being and its imperative underpinning to any liberal democratic society。He addresses the many misconceptions spread by poor politics， journalism and social media， while fearlessly negating the radical left's common arguments against free speech， in a balanced and respectful tone。For anyone who genuinely seeks knowledge over belief， this is an excellent introduction to why free speech is so important to uphold。 。。。more
Gwen
，
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。
Kelly In Books
，
Jheez， there are so many quotes I’ve taken from this book that want to share with you， but I would end up just quoting the whole damn thing。 This book resonates with me so much。 I have gotten to the point where I am f*cking terrified of saying the wrong thing on social media and being cancelled。 Doyle raises so many good points and does it so eloquently， but it’s annoying that it even has to be said because it feels like such basic sh*t！ So I’ll leave you with my main take-away point: “𝒴𝑒𝓈， 𝓊𝓃𝓅𝓁 Jheez， there are so many quotes I’ve taken from this book that want to share with you， but I would end up just quoting the whole damn thing。 This book resonates with me so much。 I have gotten to the point where I am f*cking terrified of saying the wrong thing on social media and being cancelled。 Doyle raises so many good points and does it so eloquently， but it’s annoying that it even has to be said because it feels like such basic sh*t！ So I’ll leave you with my main take-away point: “𝒴𝑒𝓈， 𝓊𝓃𝓅𝓁𝑒𝒶𝓈𝒶𝓃𝓉 𝓅𝑒𝑜𝓅𝓁𝑒 𝒶𝓇𝑒 𝒷𝑜𝓊𝓃𝒹 𝓉𝑜 𝓊𝓈𝑒 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝒾𝓇 𝓈𝓅𝑒𝑒𝒸𝒽 𝓉𝑜 𝒶𝒹𝓋𝒶𝓃𝒸𝑒 𝓇𝑒𝒶𝒸𝓉𝒾𝑜𝓃𝒶𝓇𝓎 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒶𝓈， 𝒷𝓊𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝒽𝓊𝓂𝒶𝓃 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝑒𝓃𝒶𝒷𝓁𝑒𝓈 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 𝓉𝑜 𝒹𝑜 𝓈𝑜 𝒾𝓈 𝓅𝓇𝑒𝒸𝒾𝓈𝑒𝓁𝓎 𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓈𝒶𝓂𝑒 𝓇𝒾𝑔𝒽𝓉 𝓉𝒽𝒶𝓉 𝒶𝓁𝓁𝑜𝓌𝓈 𝓊𝓈 𝓉𝑜 𝒸𝑜𝓊𝓃𝓉𝑒𝓇 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂。”Protecting your enemy’s freedom of speech is not that same thing as agreeing with the context of what they are saying。 。。。more
Jeremy
，
A descent book about free speech and why it is still important。
Jon Doran
，
Some interesting arguments。 I agree with with pretty much all of it。 It's a shame this is a contentious subject。 I suppose this subject doesn't seem like the cutting edge for me， but it is certainly important - I think it is more in the mainstream that this has become contentious， and in some ways， I departed from that a long time ago。 The amount of non hate crimes， over the past 5 years is disturbing （get the fact）。 It makes sense that we need to hear the opposing views in order to grow in clar Some interesting arguments。 I agree with with pretty much all of it。 It's a shame this is a contentious subject。 I suppose this subject doesn't seem like the cutting edge for me， but it is certainly important - I think it is more in the mainstream that this has become contentious， and in some ways， I departed from that a long time ago。 The amount of non hate crimes， over the past 5 years is disturbing （get the fact）。 It makes sense that we need to hear the opposing views in order to grow in clarity。 It's difficult in defending freespeech， it makes it look like you are defending the arguments of crazy folk， when you are not， but this is the low resolution view of our culture。 It's through dialogue that truth emerges。 。。。more
João Pereira
，
In a world where ‘cancel culture’ and ‘no platforming’ have become ubiquitous in certain mediums （I’ve personally seen it happen countless times to speakers and events）， where an oligarchy of Big Tech companies can dictate who can voice their opinions and what opinions can be voiced， and where nobody is exempt from being targeted by such factions wishing to limit speech and from being ‘cancelled’ （something which seems to be quite popular nowadays）， Andrew Doyle reminds us why free speech is an In a world where ‘cancel culture’ and ‘no platforming’ have become ubiquitous in certain mediums （I’ve personally seen it happen countless times to speakers and events）， where an oligarchy of Big Tech companies can dictate who can voice their opinions and what opinions can be voiced， and where nobody is exempt from being targeted by such factions wishing to limit speech and from being ‘cancelled’ （something which seems to be quite popular nowadays）， Andrew Doyle reminds us why free speech is an inviolable principle which cannot， under any circumstance， be sacrificed， even if to serve allegedly noble purposes。 Freedom of speech is our last line of defence against bigotry， prejudice， and evil， and limiting it does more to protect those it wishes to silence than those it wishes to shield。 。。。more
E Stanton
，
A great book on free speech by a very smart comedian who realizes how horrible the threat is in modern media。 recommended to everyone
Satheesh Kumar
，