What do you think?
Rate this book
Defending Free Speech
Freedom of speech is indispensable to a free and civilized society, yet this precious right is increasingly under attack today. • Islamic totalitarians repeatedly threaten and kill those deemed blasphemers, while our political leaders stand idly by, and many intellectuals blame the victims. • College students seek “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” from controversial ideas and fly into fits of rage at the slightest offense. • The government harasses tea party groups, preventing them from speaking out during an election, and it investigates oil companies and advocacy groups for the “crime” of dissenting from climate change orthodoxy. Why is this happening? What can be done? This hard-hitting collection provides answers. Applying Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism to the most pressing free speech issues of the day, the essays in this book reveal the attacks on free speech to be the product of destructive ideas—ideas that are eroding Western culture at its foundation. They expose those ideas and the individuals who hold them, and, importantly, they identify the only ideas on which Western civilization can be reason, egoism, and individual rights.
- GenresPoliticsPhilosophy
138 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 24, 2016
15 people are currently reading
67 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 - 8 of 8 reviews
January 23, 2024
Excellent ideas and arguments, logical and comprehensive. The problem was the repitition. After the 1st 30 minutes there wasn't anything new, just repeats of the previous essays.
Read
July 26, 2017This book was very well-written, easy to read, and made me quite ashamed that I once ran a debate case repealing Citizens United (please forgive me, Ayn Rand).
I did have one contention with it, however, and that was when Onkar Ghate asserted in his article "The Twilight of Freedom of Speech" that the reason the West is being dominated by Muslims is because of Jesus. Essentially, he stated that Jesus' montra of "love your enemies" is getting us trampled by Islam. Yet I would argue that one need only look to the history of Christianity to see that this claim is absurd; followers of Christ have had no problem standing up for themselves in the past (i.e. Battle of Jericho, battle against the Midianites, crusades, etc). Of course, Christians are instructed to be merciful and gracious as Christ was for us, but until we get the enemy to the point where mercy and grace can be appropriately extended, we can fight to protect ourselves.
Actually, make that two contentions. Ghate later contradicts his sentiment above when he says in "Free Speech vs. Religion: An Interview with Onkar Ghate" that "the U.S. is not a Judeo-Christian nation." So which is it, Mr. Ghate? Is the US being dominated by Islam because of its Christian values or is it not a Christian nation to begin with? If the latter, one need only look to the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence to see Ghate is mistaken: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Indeed, the very notion that all people are created equal is Christian in origin, and the portion about the Creator seals the deal.
In the end, the qualms I had were not so much against the book as they were about individual opinions in the book. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the First Amendment and freedom of speech with a word of caution: Beware of Ghate and his contradictory conceptions. ;)
I did have one contention with it, however, and that was when Onkar Ghate asserted in his article "The Twilight of Freedom of Speech" that the reason the West is being dominated by Muslims is because of Jesus. Essentially, he stated that Jesus' montra of "love your enemies" is getting us trampled by Islam. Yet I would argue that one need only look to the history of Christianity to see that this claim is absurd; followers of Christ have had no problem standing up for themselves in the past (i.e. Battle of Jericho, battle against the Midianites, crusades, etc). Of course, Christians are instructed to be merciful and gracious as Christ was for us, but until we get the enemy to the point where mercy and grace can be appropriately extended, we can fight to protect ourselves.
Actually, make that two contentions. Ghate later contradicts his sentiment above when he says in "Free Speech vs. Religion: An Interview with Onkar Ghate" that "the U.S. is not a Judeo-Christian nation." So which is it, Mr. Ghate? Is the US being dominated by Islam because of its Christian values or is it not a Christian nation to begin with? If the latter, one need only look to the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence to see Ghate is mistaken: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." Indeed, the very notion that all people are created equal is Christian in origin, and the portion about the Creator seals the deal.
In the end, the qualms I had were not so much against the book as they were about individual opinions in the book. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the First Amendment and freedom of speech with a word of caution: Beware of Ghate and his contradictory conceptions. ;)
August 3, 2016
Trigger warning: If this book doesn’t get you fighting mad about this important and fundamental American freedom, then perhaps its time to find a “safe space” somewhere where you and your thoughts will be snug and safe against everything that makes you uncomfortable. For the rest of us, this book is a warning. Read it. Then buy copies for your friends and families and talk to your kids about why they need to stand up for this most important freedom.
September 30, 2019
I’d like to begin this review with three disclaimers as I think they’re both important to understanding my mindset before reading the book.
First of all, I had no idea that this was a book from the Ayn Rand Institute until I started reading it. I buy books based on either recognising the author or of the topics they discuss so I didn’t do too much research into who published the book. Very early on I noticed the quote from Ayn Rand, and then a declaration about the Institute. I looked at the back and would you look at that, the logo is on the back. I’m familiar with Ayn Rand and some of her concepts (particularly Objectivism) but having not read any of her works first hand (playing Bioshock doesn’t substitute my not having read Atlas Shrugged) I’m not attacking Rand philosophy in this book.
Second, I am an Atheist. In line with the beliefs of authors such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I don’t think that all religions are equally bad in terms of their behaviour. I have major problems with Islam (particularly the Qur’ran’s attitude to women and lack of acceptance to “unbelievers”) that I don’t have with Buddhism for example (bettering yourself and living your best life, not living to make up for the sin that you are born into).
The final disclaimer: I am all for Freedom of Speech. You only need to look at cases such as Count Dankula (the Nazi pug guy you’ll probably know him as) to see how a lack of Freedom of Speech is ludicrous: serving more as unreasonable censorship than the apparent aims to protect groups of people. You should be able to say whatever you want to say about anything with the only limits being the law in a liberal sense. Libel laws should still exist, not to dissuade you from talking, but to stop you from spreading misinformation. Criminal laws should also exist if your speech unquestionably affects public safety (think fire in a crowd).
So why, if I am in favour of freedom of speech, am I against this book. Simple: it’s a very shallow look that doesn’t actually examine freedom of speech, serving far more to say “Muslims just can’t take a joke and they attack, how barbaric”. The things that it talks about predominantly are the Fatwah against Salman Rushdie; the Danish Cartoons attacks; and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the prophet. In all of these cases I am fully onside of the publishers for publishing whatever it is they wanted to publish. These are not the only issues when it comes to the issue at hand. For a book that declares to be about Defending Freedom of Speech it’s odd that the only challenges it looks at is that of Islamic reactions.
Joke policing; cancel culture; frivolous libel lawsuits; these have all been going on for a long time and are damaging to freedom of speech. Why is it that the authors don’t comment on any of these? It’s because the authors don’t care about the general issue of freedom of speech… they care about it being ok to insult the religion of Islam. The way everything is worded it’s clear that the book only cares to talk about the actions of some Muslims to the offensive material. A more appropriate title for this book would have been “Defending Criticism of Muslims”.
Do you know what I wanted to see in this book? An acknowledgement about the publishing’s purpose. Even if it was as simple as “Did the mocking nature of the cartoons do anything more than just mock Muslims whilst serving no further point? It doesn’t matter! They should publish whatever they want whenever they want!” it would have at least shown a demonstration about the philosophy of freedom of speech. The closest to anything of this nature is a quote from Donald Trump questioning why the cartoons were published. It’s not further examined, and the book quickly moves on. How sad is it that the most intellectual statement offered in this book comes from Donald Trump.
The book details South Park’s history and the things it has been censored from saying. The authors only wish they could show any sense of understanding of the issues that South Park did.
There were a few things I noticed whilst reading that showed me that the authors either thought way too highly of themselves, or could let their bias go unattended. The lack of references was a great example, making sweeping claims about Muslim reactions that we have to accept at their word. A quick link to a news article, or even “X attack on X Date” would have eased this off. This lack of referencing was at best laziness and at worst a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters without following it up with proof.
At page 39 of the paperback I read one of the prominent contributors to the book describes himself as an intellectual. It made me laugh because describing oneself as an intellectual surely requires a level of arrogance and ego that I wouldn’t associate with an actual intellectual. For all my complaints with someone like Jordan Peterson for example I’ve only seen his fans refer to him as an intellectual, I’ve not read him do it himself.
Most of the book is clearly coming from an area of bias. As a book from the Ayn Rand Institute I wasn’t surprised, nor do I draw a problem, with the constant quoting of Ayn Rand. What I did draw an issue with is the digs it took at certain political people. There’s a timeline of events that talk about the three events I mentioned earlier. Mostly it’s objective just giving the facts. That is until Obama comes up. His actions were “evading the Government’s fundamental responsibility to protect freedom of speech”. He’s the enemy you see, and if someone influenced by Rand was in charge they wouldn’t.
This is a mistitled book: more focused on your right to mock Islam and Muslims than actually defending freedom of speech. It’s a short book consisting of just essays and articles and there’s no reason, beyond sticking to an unnecessarily narrow view, to not elaborate more. Drawing a problem with this book is not arguing against of freedom of speech: it’s asking people who defend freedom of speech to actually discuss it instead of just writing the equivalent of “LOL MUSLIMS ARE BARBARIC WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY IT WITHOUT BEING SHOT”. The actions by the Islamic groups who sought to use violence in response to the previously referenced instances are among the worst kind of people the world has ever seen. This is not a book recommended if you genuinely want to examine freedom of speech and the consequences of it. HARD SKIP!!
First of all, I had no idea that this was a book from the Ayn Rand Institute until I started reading it. I buy books based on either recognising the author or of the topics they discuss so I didn’t do too much research into who published the book. Very early on I noticed the quote from Ayn Rand, and then a declaration about the Institute. I looked at the back and would you look at that, the logo is on the back. I’m familiar with Ayn Rand and some of her concepts (particularly Objectivism) but having not read any of her works first hand (playing Bioshock doesn’t substitute my not having read Atlas Shrugged) I’m not attacking Rand philosophy in this book.
Second, I am an Atheist. In line with the beliefs of authors such as Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I don’t think that all religions are equally bad in terms of their behaviour. I have major problems with Islam (particularly the Qur’ran’s attitude to women and lack of acceptance to “unbelievers”) that I don’t have with Buddhism for example (bettering yourself and living your best life, not living to make up for the sin that you are born into).
The final disclaimer: I am all for Freedom of Speech. You only need to look at cases such as Count Dankula (the Nazi pug guy you’ll probably know him as) to see how a lack of Freedom of Speech is ludicrous: serving more as unreasonable censorship than the apparent aims to protect groups of people. You should be able to say whatever you want to say about anything with the only limits being the law in a liberal sense. Libel laws should still exist, not to dissuade you from talking, but to stop you from spreading misinformation. Criminal laws should also exist if your speech unquestionably affects public safety (think fire in a crowd).
So why, if I am in favour of freedom of speech, am I against this book. Simple: it’s a very shallow look that doesn’t actually examine freedom of speech, serving far more to say “Muslims just can’t take a joke and they attack, how barbaric”. The things that it talks about predominantly are the Fatwah against Salman Rushdie; the Danish Cartoons attacks; and Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the prophet. In all of these cases I am fully onside of the publishers for publishing whatever it is they wanted to publish. These are not the only issues when it comes to the issue at hand. For a book that declares to be about Defending Freedom of Speech it’s odd that the only challenges it looks at is that of Islamic reactions.
Joke policing; cancel culture; frivolous libel lawsuits; these have all been going on for a long time and are damaging to freedom of speech. Why is it that the authors don’t comment on any of these? It’s because the authors don’t care about the general issue of freedom of speech… they care about it being ok to insult the religion of Islam. The way everything is worded it’s clear that the book only cares to talk about the actions of some Muslims to the offensive material. A more appropriate title for this book would have been “Defending Criticism of Muslims”.
Do you know what I wanted to see in this book? An acknowledgement about the publishing’s purpose. Even if it was as simple as “Did the mocking nature of the cartoons do anything more than just mock Muslims whilst serving no further point? It doesn’t matter! They should publish whatever they want whenever they want!” it would have at least shown a demonstration about the philosophy of freedom of speech. The closest to anything of this nature is a quote from Donald Trump questioning why the cartoons were published. It’s not further examined, and the book quickly moves on. How sad is it that the most intellectual statement offered in this book comes from Donald Trump.
The book details South Park’s history and the things it has been censored from saying. The authors only wish they could show any sense of understanding of the issues that South Park did.
There were a few things I noticed whilst reading that showed me that the authors either thought way too highly of themselves, or could let their bias go unattended. The lack of references was a great example, making sweeping claims about Muslim reactions that we have to accept at their word. A quick link to a news article, or even “X attack on X Date” would have eased this off. This lack of referencing was at best laziness and at worst a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters without following it up with proof.
At page 39 of the paperback I read one of the prominent contributors to the book describes himself as an intellectual. It made me laugh because describing oneself as an intellectual surely requires a level of arrogance and ego that I wouldn’t associate with an actual intellectual. For all my complaints with someone like Jordan Peterson for example I’ve only seen his fans refer to him as an intellectual, I’ve not read him do it himself.
Most of the book is clearly coming from an area of bias. As a book from the Ayn Rand Institute I wasn’t surprised, nor do I draw a problem, with the constant quoting of Ayn Rand. What I did draw an issue with is the digs it took at certain political people. There’s a timeline of events that talk about the three events I mentioned earlier. Mostly it’s objective just giving the facts. That is until Obama comes up. His actions were “evading the Government’s fundamental responsibility to protect freedom of speech”. He’s the enemy you see, and if someone influenced by Rand was in charge they wouldn’t.
This is a mistitled book: more focused on your right to mock Islam and Muslims than actually defending freedom of speech. It’s a short book consisting of just essays and articles and there’s no reason, beyond sticking to an unnecessarily narrow view, to not elaborate more. Drawing a problem with this book is not arguing against of freedom of speech: it’s asking people who defend freedom of speech to actually discuss it instead of just writing the equivalent of “LOL MUSLIMS ARE BARBARIC WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY IT WITHOUT BEING SHOT”. The actions by the Islamic groups who sought to use violence in response to the previously referenced instances are among the worst kind of people the world has ever seen. This is not a book recommended if you genuinely want to examine freedom of speech and the consequences of it. HARD SKIP!!
February 18, 2020
Sometimes the objectivists are silly self-defeating libertarians. Sometimes objectivists are just neo-cons.
The neo-con side is basically the contents of this book.
Its essentially one big "let's you and him fight, because muslims don't like people drawing Mohammad." Had this been published 19 years ago, it would've been in-line with the controlled discourse. Today, it's obviously a means to appropriate the interest in free speech towards collectivist ends.
"Muh collective" is literally the goal of the book, which is pretty amusing if you ask me given the alleged opposition to that from objectivists.
The neo-con side is basically the contents of this book.
Its essentially one big "let's you and him fight, because muslims don't like people drawing Mohammad." Had this been published 19 years ago, it would've been in-line with the controlled discourse. Today, it's obviously a means to appropriate the interest in free speech towards collectivist ends.
"Muh collective" is literally the goal of the book, which is pretty amusing if you ask me given the alleged opposition to that from objectivists.
November 30, 2022
This collection of short articles written by Objectivists around the topic of free speech, and it begins with Salman Rushdie and goes through the Muhammed drawings, and then the Charlie Hebdo shooting, focusing on how Islam is against the core idea of freedom of speech. I found the amount of articles on these topics a bit over the top, repeating each other and rephrasing, but the latter parts of the books were better when more broad approach on free speech was addressed, also in general culture and colleges around USA.
April 25, 2021
Amazon asked if this 'met my expectations'. It's a book called Defending Free Speech about defending free speech. Of course it met my expectations. It's an excellent book. It didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, but I expected as much. I'm pro- free speech and I bought this to read and keep for my library. The people who ought to read this book, and who might actually learn something from it, probably won't. Which is a shame, but it's the world we live in. If you want to know more about defending free speech, this is the book for you. If you want to learn how to defend your rights and/or to have ammunition for debating those who would like to see your rights taken away, this book will certainly provide ammunition for that battle. If you're on the fence about free speech and want to learn why it's so important, read this.
December 14, 2016
This book is a collection of essays on the subject of free speech written across multiple decades, beginning with the fatwah on Salman Rushdie and leading up to the recent attacks at Charlie Hebdo and Garland, Texas. You can really see how the response to threats and attacks against speech has gotten progressively more pathetic over the years.
While all the essays are well-written and well-argued, I found that many of the essays in the first half of the book were somewhat redundant. At times, it felt as though I was rereading the same article multiple times. It wasn't until the second half of the book that I found articles which provided me with some original and compelling defenses of tricky issues like the campaign finance.
While all the essays are well-written and well-argued, I found that many of the essays in the first half of the book were somewhat redundant. At times, it felt as though I was rereading the same article multiple times. It wasn't until the second half of the book that I found articles which provided me with some original and compelling defenses of tricky issues like the campaign finance.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews