What do you think?
Rate this book
Direito a Ofender: A Liberdade de Expressão e o Politicamente Correcto
O MEDO DE OFENDER ESTÁ A LIMITAR A LIBERDADE DE EXPRESSÃO. É LEGÍTIMO FAZÊ-LO?
«Um livro fulcral, que não podia ser mais relevante neste momento. É convicto, destemido e empenhado em desconstruir os argumentos falaciosos contra a liberdade de expressão, defendendo esse valor sem reservas e com argumentos extremamente convincentes. Neste tempo de fraqueza de espírito, é muito bom lermos uma defesa tão incondicional.» —SALMAN RUSHDIE
O assassínio a sangue-frio dos cartoonistas do «Charlie Hebdo» em Janeiro de 2015 colocou o tema da liberdade de expressão em primeiro plano. Os líderes das democracias de todo o mundo uniram-se para condenar os ataques. Mas, no rescaldo do massacre, muitas vozes começaram a defender a necessidade de delimitar as fronteiras do direito a ofender.
Em contracorrente, o jornalista britânico Mick Hume argumenta que o direito a ofender é parte inalienável do direito à liberdade de expressão — um valor em risco no Ocidente.
«Um livro fulcral, que não podia ser mais relevante neste momento. É convicto, destemido e empenhado em desconstruir os argumentos falaciosos contra a liberdade de expressão, defendendo esse valor sem reservas e com argumentos extremamente convincentes. Neste tempo de fraqueza de espírito, é muito bom lermos uma defesa tão incondicional.» —SALMAN RUSHDIE
O assassínio a sangue-frio dos cartoonistas do «Charlie Hebdo» em Janeiro de 2015 colocou o tema da liberdade de expressão em primeiro plano. Os líderes das democracias de todo o mundo uniram-se para condenar os ataques. Mas, no rescaldo do massacre, muitas vozes começaram a defender a necessidade de delimitar as fronteiras do direito a ofender.
Em contracorrente, o jornalista britânico Mick Hume argumenta que o direito a ofender é parte inalienável do direito à liberdade de expressão — um valor em risco no Ocidente.
320 pages, Paperback
First published June 18, 2015
47 people are currently reading
688 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 67 reviews
November 21, 2015
“Free speech is more important than hurt feelings. It is a sorry sign of the times that such a statement might seem outlandish to some.”
Trigger warning: common-sense-based views, anti-priggishness, the necessity to judge for yourself and not take everything the author says at face-value, anti-holier-than-thou-conformism, freedom-does-not-include-the-right-to-unchallenged-narcissism
Supposing you feel inclined to disagree with the above quotation from Mick Hume’s book Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech? and would want to counter that whenever you use your right to speaking your mind freely, you should take into consideration how your words will be received and if they might not do more harm than good, you might already be on the slippery slope of self-censorship at best and demanding further-going state-regulations for free speech at worst. In that case, reading this book might do you a world of good.
Mind, although Hume has a very wide definition of what he regards as falling under the scope of free speech – wider, in fact, than I personally deem appropriate –, he still says that libel, insults and threats do not, of course, qualify as examples of people using this basic right. And, what is more, he says that having the right of using free speech, even though it may offend others, does not exempt you from judging for yourself the appropriateness in any given situation of doing so – according to William Hazlitt’s dictum, “An honest man speaks the truth, though it may give offence; a vain man, in order that it may.” In that context, we might also add that a vain man, or woman, is especially quick at taking offense.
Hume is not only concerned with growing state regulations against free speech but also with the increasing influence of the PC language police that do their best to limit the scope of what can be said in public, and even in private, and here his cogent conclusion is:
”The attempt to de-normalise any speech which somebody finds offensive is having a stultifying effect on public debate, encouraging an atmosphere of tame conformism and mute self-censorship.” (Chapter 8)
The problem here is that what I, you, he, she, it regard as an offense is perfectly subjective, and while some people might feel offended and hurt in their feelings by what they see when they look into the mirror, yet what the mirror shows them is the truth. In public debates, this narcissistic approach of terming anything one might feel offended by as “hate speech” will eventually lead to the stifling of discussion and the end of people expressing their thoughts for fear of being branded as White Old Men and maybe even of having their social and professional lives ruined in a modern witch-hunt. Hume’s conclusion is:
”[…] anyone is entitled to take offence at anything said by anybody else. But taking offence does not give them any right to take away somebody else’s freedom of speech.” (ibid.)
Hume sees the reason for this increase in touchiness and the instrumentalization of being offended – something that, according to Frank Furedi, will lead to “the criminalization of criticism” – in the fact that in pluralistic societies traditional sources of identity, like nation, church, family, are losing influence and that people strive to establish new identities, and he states that
”[i]dentity politics is the sphere of competitive victimhood. Identity groups draw their moral authority from the claim for redress for grievances and offences against them, past and present. The insistence that you are constantly vulnerable and victimized reinforces the tendency to take offence at any opinion outside your identity’s narrow worldview. Since identity is defined subjectively, it matters not what the intention of the offending speaker or writer might have been. If the identity group says it is offensive, then it automatically must be so, and demands for a withdrawal, apology and possibly compensation will follow.” (ibid.)
You may want to laugh out loud at the idea of making another person’s arbitrary or self-alleged level of sensibility the litmus test of what you are allowed to say, but the laughter will surely die in your throat when you learn that UK legislation’s definition of “hate speech” is based on exactly what the person spoken or referred to, or any other person, might deem offensive. I could not help thinking that at the bottom of all this madness, which is not void of method, there is people’s increasing tendency to rely on the Nanny State, a tendency which is encouraged by self-appointed social justice warriors. People have more and more got used to relying on the state and the government to redress social wrongs and to fight the ills of social inequality, but their material well-being is just one thing. Another is their urge to feel cozy in their assumptions about themselves, and so their next demand will be for the state to make sure that they might not have to face their own orthodoxies challenged by dissenting views. The flipside of it all is that the state, and a self-righteous and jaded Internet mob, will become the arbiter in the question of what can and what cannot be said in public, and eventually thought in private. Thoughtcrime will no longer be just a dystopian bogeyman and the idea of the government actually educating citizens, as though they were foul-mouthed and naughty children, will become acceptable. After all, a nanny not only feeds, clothes and pampers her fosterlings but also has to tell them what they must and must not say and think. And governments just ever-thankfully grasp at any excuse to enlarge their power over civil life.
Hume also deals with other strategies of what he calls the “reverse-Voltaires”, for example their favourite weapons of labelling opposing views as based on phobias or denial strategies in order to make them seem spawned by psychological disorders or downright dishonesty and put them beyond the pale of what is worth discussing. In old rhetoric schools this was called the argumentum ad hominem or the appeal to motive, both strategies of poisoning the well. In societies based on free speech, individualism and scientific progress, strategies like these should be beneath any responsible and enlightened person’s dignity. For example, will findings and data casting some doubt on anthropogenic climate change be adequately dealt with by calling scientists who come up with them “climate change deniers”? Probably only so if you are very, very religious about that sort of thing. When you read some of the raving rants of climate change orthodoxics on scientists who either do not believe in anthropogenic climate change or do not assign the topic top priority, in Chapter 10, you may well gain the impression that the Middle Ages and the Holy Inquisition have been reintroduced through the back door.
I cannot deny … ahem … that Mick Hume’s thoughts on the silent war on free speech were on the whole very convincing to me, and I sincerely hope that the western world will not adopt the new religion of stupidity and self-censoring because in the long run, every single one of us would suffer from its consequences. Nevertheless, the book is not flawless. For once, it is too long and repetitive. Second, I find it hard to agree with Hume’s loose definition of free speech. When dumb and sexually frustrated Internet junkies post their raping fantasies with regard to a certain person online, I would not, unlike Hume, regard this as a despicable though meaningless insult, but I would argue that this is a substantial threat and should be prosecuted accordingly. Hamstringing crude remarks like these or racial slurs is not the same as shutting down a debate by labelling your opponent a climate change denier or by telling him to check his privileges – as though men could not hold views on abortion – or as bowdlerizing Mark Twain or Joseph Conrad in a pathetic attempt to rewrite history, thereby proving one’s pathetic ignorance of literature. I would also not agree with Hume’s attempts at whitewashing the often rather mud-slinging and manipulative popular press, but here Hume is obviously writing pro domo.
Last not least, there remains the question of how powerful words are when it comes to changing reality and to manipulating people. While I cannot help laughing at Judith Butler’s performativity model, which reminds me of Frodo’s fear of speaking the name of Sauron out aloud or of the stoning scene in The Life of Brian, I do not share Hume’s smugness about people’s general immunity against propaganda and manipulation, either. The truth is probably that people can be seduced by words – but not by those alone – and that leaving them to judge for themselves might also have them end up with wrong and even harmful conclusions. Nevertheless the danger of people making the wrong choices is no justification for governments and identity pressure groups to decide what may and what may not be said and thought because that what would be the source of their ultimate authority to do so? Are they less passionate, more impartial, better educated – or even the better people? And after all, people need not necessarily end up with the wrong ideas if they have the chance to see both sides of a question and if they are used to using their loaves. Living in a democracy and enjoying personal freedoms – also from government control – and having the right to send up self-righteous, po-faced prigs, by the way, are such highs good that even the possibility of sometimes making the “wrong” choices is a price we should be willing to pay.
With all due apologies from a white, middle-aged male.
Trigger warning: common-sense-based views, anti-priggishness, the necessity to judge for yourself and not take everything the author says at face-value, anti-holier-than-thou-conformism, freedom-does-not-include-the-right-to-unchallenged-narcissism
Supposing you feel inclined to disagree with the above quotation from Mick Hume’s book Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech? and would want to counter that whenever you use your right to speaking your mind freely, you should take into consideration how your words will be received and if they might not do more harm than good, you might already be on the slippery slope of self-censorship at best and demanding further-going state-regulations for free speech at worst. In that case, reading this book might do you a world of good.
Mind, although Hume has a very wide definition of what he regards as falling under the scope of free speech – wider, in fact, than I personally deem appropriate –, he still says that libel, insults and threats do not, of course, qualify as examples of people using this basic right. And, what is more, he says that having the right of using free speech, even though it may offend others, does not exempt you from judging for yourself the appropriateness in any given situation of doing so – according to William Hazlitt’s dictum, “An honest man speaks the truth, though it may give offence; a vain man, in order that it may.” In that context, we might also add that a vain man, or woman, is especially quick at taking offense.
Hume is not only concerned with growing state regulations against free speech but also with the increasing influence of the PC language police that do their best to limit the scope of what can be said in public, and even in private, and here his cogent conclusion is:
”The attempt to de-normalise any speech which somebody finds offensive is having a stultifying effect on public debate, encouraging an atmosphere of tame conformism and mute self-censorship.” (Chapter 8)
The problem here is that what I, you, he, she, it regard as an offense is perfectly subjective, and while some people might feel offended and hurt in their feelings by what they see when they look into the mirror, yet what the mirror shows them is the truth. In public debates, this narcissistic approach of terming anything one might feel offended by as “hate speech” will eventually lead to the stifling of discussion and the end of people expressing their thoughts for fear of being branded as White Old Men and maybe even of having their social and professional lives ruined in a modern witch-hunt. Hume’s conclusion is:
”[…] anyone is entitled to take offence at anything said by anybody else. But taking offence does not give them any right to take away somebody else’s freedom of speech.” (ibid.)
Hume sees the reason for this increase in touchiness and the instrumentalization of being offended – something that, according to Frank Furedi, will lead to “the criminalization of criticism” – in the fact that in pluralistic societies traditional sources of identity, like nation, church, family, are losing influence and that people strive to establish new identities, and he states that
”[i]dentity politics is the sphere of competitive victimhood. Identity groups draw their moral authority from the claim for redress for grievances and offences against them, past and present. The insistence that you are constantly vulnerable and victimized reinforces the tendency to take offence at any opinion outside your identity’s narrow worldview. Since identity is defined subjectively, it matters not what the intention of the offending speaker or writer might have been. If the identity group says it is offensive, then it automatically must be so, and demands for a withdrawal, apology and possibly compensation will follow.” (ibid.)
You may want to laugh out loud at the idea of making another person’s arbitrary or self-alleged level of sensibility the litmus test of what you are allowed to say, but the laughter will surely die in your throat when you learn that UK legislation’s definition of “hate speech” is based on exactly what the person spoken or referred to, or any other person, might deem offensive. I could not help thinking that at the bottom of all this madness, which is not void of method, there is people’s increasing tendency to rely on the Nanny State, a tendency which is encouraged by self-appointed social justice warriors. People have more and more got used to relying on the state and the government to redress social wrongs and to fight the ills of social inequality, but their material well-being is just one thing. Another is their urge to feel cozy in their assumptions about themselves, and so their next demand will be for the state to make sure that they might not have to face their own orthodoxies challenged by dissenting views. The flipside of it all is that the state, and a self-righteous and jaded Internet mob, will become the arbiter in the question of what can and what cannot be said in public, and eventually thought in private. Thoughtcrime will no longer be just a dystopian bogeyman and the idea of the government actually educating citizens, as though they were foul-mouthed and naughty children, will become acceptable. After all, a nanny not only feeds, clothes and pampers her fosterlings but also has to tell them what they must and must not say and think. And governments just ever-thankfully grasp at any excuse to enlarge their power over civil life.
Hume also deals with other strategies of what he calls the “reverse-Voltaires”, for example their favourite weapons of labelling opposing views as based on phobias or denial strategies in order to make them seem spawned by psychological disorders or downright dishonesty and put them beyond the pale of what is worth discussing. In old rhetoric schools this was called the argumentum ad hominem or the appeal to motive, both strategies of poisoning the well. In societies based on free speech, individualism and scientific progress, strategies like these should be beneath any responsible and enlightened person’s dignity. For example, will findings and data casting some doubt on anthropogenic climate change be adequately dealt with by calling scientists who come up with them “climate change deniers”? Probably only so if you are very, very religious about that sort of thing. When you read some of the raving rants of climate change orthodoxics on scientists who either do not believe in anthropogenic climate change or do not assign the topic top priority, in Chapter 10, you may well gain the impression that the Middle Ages and the Holy Inquisition have been reintroduced through the back door.
I cannot deny … ahem … that Mick Hume’s thoughts on the silent war on free speech were on the whole very convincing to me, and I sincerely hope that the western world will not adopt the new religion of stupidity and self-censoring because in the long run, every single one of us would suffer from its consequences. Nevertheless, the book is not flawless. For once, it is too long and repetitive. Second, I find it hard to agree with Hume’s loose definition of free speech. When dumb and sexually frustrated Internet junkies post their raping fantasies with regard to a certain person online, I would not, unlike Hume, regard this as a despicable though meaningless insult, but I would argue that this is a substantial threat and should be prosecuted accordingly. Hamstringing crude remarks like these or racial slurs is not the same as shutting down a debate by labelling your opponent a climate change denier or by telling him to check his privileges – as though men could not hold views on abortion – or as bowdlerizing Mark Twain or Joseph Conrad in a pathetic attempt to rewrite history, thereby proving one’s pathetic ignorance of literature. I would also not agree with Hume’s attempts at whitewashing the often rather mud-slinging and manipulative popular press, but here Hume is obviously writing pro domo.
Last not least, there remains the question of how powerful words are when it comes to changing reality and to manipulating people. While I cannot help laughing at Judith Butler’s performativity model, which reminds me of Frodo’s fear of speaking the name of Sauron out aloud or of the stoning scene in The Life of Brian, I do not share Hume’s smugness about people’s general immunity against propaganda and manipulation, either. The truth is probably that people can be seduced by words – but not by those alone – and that leaving them to judge for themselves might also have them end up with wrong and even harmful conclusions. Nevertheless the danger of people making the wrong choices is no justification for governments and identity pressure groups to decide what may and what may not be said and thought because that what would be the source of their ultimate authority to do so? Are they less passionate, more impartial, better educated – or even the better people? And after all, people need not necessarily end up with the wrong ideas if they have the chance to see both sides of a question and if they are used to using their loaves. Living in a democracy and enjoying personal freedoms – also from government control – and having the right to send up self-righteous, po-faced prigs, by the way, are such highs good that even the possibility of sometimes making the “wrong” choices is a price we should be willing to pay.
With all due apologies from a white, middle-aged male.
November 26, 2019
Warning (fitting): In case it wasn’t obvious, this is a political review. If you are easily offended by different opinions this book and review aren’t for you.
What’s it about?
The author of this book asks readers if free speech is under attack as he goes over recent and historical cases of censorship, why all speech is free speech and why it’s worth fighting for even if you disagree with what’s being said.
Pros:
This book is quite interesting. Those who follow me know that free speech and censorship are things I’m very passionate about so it interested me. It even helped me think some things slightly differently as I noticed some stuff. Thanks for opening my eyes to a thing or two, book.
This book is educational, I actually learned some stuff here so that’s pretty cool.
This book is often humorous.
The narrator of the audio edition I listened to has a perfect voice for nonfiction (I specify nonfiction as I’m not sure I’d care for it in a fictional audiobook).
Cons:
This guy seriously overreacts to trigger warnings. I still fail to see how a content warning “puts a gun to the head of free speech” as this book puts it. I’ll go more in depth on trigger warnings later in the review but yeah, I think this writer really jumped off the deep end with that.
This book definitely has a right wing bias. So yeah, it does point out a few cases of conservatives attacking free speech but CONSTANTLY points out things that liberals have done and that it was liberals (also a minor note: one part of the book sounded slightly transphobic which certainly doesn’t help hide the bias).
The main reason this is a 3-star instead of a 4 is because it beats a dead horse and is drawn out. This book is almost 12 hours long because it often goes on and on, even repeating itself quite a bit.
Is all speech free speech?
I say yes. If free speech was regulated it would not be free. Sure I don’t like racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. but people who do have the right to say that bullshit just as I have the right to say it’s bullshit because that’s how free speech works. It’s also notable that history proves letting the government regulate speech is dangerous and a path we should avoid.
Is free speech in danger?
Yes and no.
First of all I have to make it clear that both liberals and conservatives are full of shit when it comes to this. Liberals say how they hate censorship when it comes to how the FCC fines people for saying certain words on broadcast TV or radio (agree, shouldn’t be fined and censored) but cheer when a subreddit they deem offensive is banned (what?). At the same time conservatives hate censorship when Alex Jones is banned on social media (I may not be an Info Wars fan but I agree, shouldn’t be censored) but it’s the Republican President Donald Trump that blames video games for violence (many conservative groups unsurprisingly agree with blaming this as well as certain types of TV shows and music) and even pressured Blumhouse Productions into cancelling the release of a controversial violent movie (The Hunt).
I think in some countries (Australia, Canada, England and China are the first to come to mind) the governments have killed free speech in absolutely horrible ways, some going to jail or even beat (in a few cases killed) for something deemed “offensive” by people and/or the country’s government which is absolutely awful. Social media sites are private companies so should do whatever they want but you gotta admit they are very ban-happy and often gang up on certain people (especially but not only when it comes to political content) so it’s annoying at best. In America there are some active forms of censorship (FCC regulations on broadcast TV and AM/FM radio come to mind) and there are many groups and people who want to destroy free speech but I think in the end (and this applies for other countries and even social media) if people stand up for it, free speech will win and it is far from dead in the US (where I and despite the author being British, probably most of the book’s audience live).
Are trigger warnings promoting censorship?
This confuses me how that’s a question TBH. When a show, book, video game, music video or anything else includes a warning for (insert whatever here) it is not saying “THIS CONTENT IS UNSAFE AND MUST BE FORBIDDEN” (hell, the makers of these things want people to view/listen/play/read/etc) but it is not recommended if you are offended by such things. I know someone (a relative) who is really proud of me for releasing my first book even if she didn’t read it because she saw the warning for extreme levels of violence, language and sexual content. That’s why trigger warnings on things exist. I will admit that they can sometimes be exaggerated (I remember at least once reading reviews for a book that included long scrolls of trigger warnings but when I read it I barely even noticed ANY offensive content) and I personally don’t have any use for them as I’m almost never offended by anything at this point but I understand that some people don’t like seeing certain things. If those people say that stuff with (insert whatever they’re offended by here) should be banned, they’re promoting censorship but simply not wanting to expose themselves (or their kids, the main reason TVMA warnings on shows and M for mature labels on video games exist) to that stuff, that is entirely different.
Overall:
An interesting, sometimes humorous book that is unfortunately often drug out and has some issues.
I’d recommend it if you like political nonfiction and/or are interested in the subject but if not, this won’t interest you.
3/5
What’s it about?
The author of this book asks readers if free speech is under attack as he goes over recent and historical cases of censorship, why all speech is free speech and why it’s worth fighting for even if you disagree with what’s being said.
Pros:
This book is quite interesting. Those who follow me know that free speech and censorship are things I’m very passionate about so it interested me. It even helped me think some things slightly differently as I noticed some stuff. Thanks for opening my eyes to a thing or two, book.
This book is educational, I actually learned some stuff here so that’s pretty cool.
This book is often humorous.
The narrator of the audio edition I listened to has a perfect voice for nonfiction (I specify nonfiction as I’m not sure I’d care for it in a fictional audiobook).
Cons:
This guy seriously overreacts to trigger warnings. I still fail to see how a content warning “puts a gun to the head of free speech” as this book puts it. I’ll go more in depth on trigger warnings later in the review but yeah, I think this writer really jumped off the deep end with that.
This book definitely has a right wing bias. So yeah, it does point out a few cases of conservatives attacking free speech but CONSTANTLY points out things that liberals have done and that it was liberals (also a minor note: one part of the book sounded slightly transphobic which certainly doesn’t help hide the bias).
The main reason this is a 3-star instead of a 4 is because it beats a dead horse and is drawn out. This book is almost 12 hours long because it often goes on and on, even repeating itself quite a bit.
Is all speech free speech?
I say yes. If free speech was regulated it would not be free. Sure I don’t like racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. but people who do have the right to say that bullshit just as I have the right to say it’s bullshit because that’s how free speech works. It’s also notable that history proves letting the government regulate speech is dangerous and a path we should avoid.
Is free speech in danger?
Yes and no.
First of all I have to make it clear that both liberals and conservatives are full of shit when it comes to this. Liberals say how they hate censorship when it comes to how the FCC fines people for saying certain words on broadcast TV or radio (agree, shouldn’t be fined and censored) but cheer when a subreddit they deem offensive is banned (what?). At the same time conservatives hate censorship when Alex Jones is banned on social media (I may not be an Info Wars fan but I agree, shouldn’t be censored) but it’s the Republican President Donald Trump that blames video games for violence (many conservative groups unsurprisingly agree with blaming this as well as certain types of TV shows and music) and even pressured Blumhouse Productions into cancelling the release of a controversial violent movie (The Hunt).
I think in some countries (Australia, Canada, England and China are the first to come to mind) the governments have killed free speech in absolutely horrible ways, some going to jail or even beat (in a few cases killed) for something deemed “offensive” by people and/or the country’s government which is absolutely awful. Social media sites are private companies so should do whatever they want but you gotta admit they are very ban-happy and often gang up on certain people (especially but not only when it comes to political content) so it’s annoying at best. In America there are some active forms of censorship (FCC regulations on broadcast TV and AM/FM radio come to mind) and there are many groups and people who want to destroy free speech but I think in the end (and this applies for other countries and even social media) if people stand up for it, free speech will win and it is far from dead in the US (where I and despite the author being British, probably most of the book’s audience live).
Are trigger warnings promoting censorship?
This confuses me how that’s a question TBH. When a show, book, video game, music video or anything else includes a warning for (insert whatever here) it is not saying “THIS CONTENT IS UNSAFE AND MUST BE FORBIDDEN” (hell, the makers of these things want people to view/listen/play/read/etc) but it is not recommended if you are offended by such things. I know someone (a relative) who is really proud of me for releasing my first book even if she didn’t read it because she saw the warning for extreme levels of violence, language and sexual content. That’s why trigger warnings on things exist. I will admit that they can sometimes be exaggerated (I remember at least once reading reviews for a book that included long scrolls of trigger warnings but when I read it I barely even noticed ANY offensive content) and I personally don’t have any use for them as I’m almost never offended by anything at this point but I understand that some people don’t like seeing certain things. If those people say that stuff with (insert whatever they’re offended by here) should be banned, they’re promoting censorship but simply not wanting to expose themselves (or their kids, the main reason TVMA warnings on shows and M for mature labels on video games exist) to that stuff, that is entirely different.
Overall:
An interesting, sometimes humorous book that is unfortunately often drug out and has some issues.
I’d recommend it if you like political nonfiction and/or are interested in the subject but if not, this won’t interest you.
3/5
October 17, 2016
Sisältövaroitus: tässä kirjassa keski-ikäinen, valkoihoinen heteromies uhriutuu, koska häntä on kielletty kiusaamasta yhteiskunnallisesti heikommassa asemassa olevia.
August 15, 2019
Leitura fundamental para desfazer alguns “nós” que muitos temos na cabeça e para relembrar a fundamental razão de ser da liberdade de expressão e a verdadeira noção de tolerância.
Concorde-se ou discorde-se do que escreve o autor, a verdade é que ele tem o direito a escrevê-lo e os leitores a retorquir a sua resposta.
Quase que me atrevia a ferir a liberdade alheia e afirmar que deveria ser de leitura obrigatória.
No limite das 5 🌟
Concorde-se ou discorde-se do que escreve o autor, a verdade é que ele tem o direito a escrevê-lo e os leitores a retorquir a sua resposta.
Quase que me atrevia a ferir a liberdade alheia e afirmar que deveria ser de leitura obrigatória.
No limite das 5 🌟
June 29, 2015
This book would have benefited greatly from the services of a ruthless editor's pen. Far too much repetition and overuse of phrases ('reverse Voltaires got particularly irksome). Having said that the book does argue passionately and persuasively for untrammelled free speech.
September 16, 2015
Trigger warning: sexism, racism, homophobia, white-privilege, safe space mocking, liberal mocking
After I finished this book yesterday, I prepared to give a scathing review about privilege and obligations of safety; that most private companies have contracts that require certain behavior as part of at-will employment, that the bullying and those social media trigger happy criers of “offensive,” “racist” and even “check your privilege” while annoying are within their rights of free speech to say those things too. And then I saw a post on my Facebook feed.
Some “liberal” morally high-minded individual put a post about how disgusted she was that Charlie Hebdo put a cartoon of the dead Syrian child Aylan Kurdi, claiming it was “disrespectful” and “disgusting” and “f-ed up.” This same person posted on January 12th “JE SUIS CHARLIE” – Well, than not exactly dear, not exactly. This is exactly the kind of double speak that Mick Hume writes about in Trigger Warning.
So let me make my thoughts as brief as possible. First the points that Mick Hume makes well.
1) No one should be arrested for using offensive language, offending anyone, verbal bullying, whatever. And he has excellent examples of cases where this hasn’t been so – see the arrest of Walker and Weston Romens, who were alleged to have chanted ‘abusive comments of a racial nature’ on a train leaving Glasgow’s Queen Street station on 31 January. (http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/16/men-arr...) This is wrong – I agree. And not just because they were re-enacting a scene. Even if the witness had been correct that they had been chanting “abuses of a racial nature” – still shouldn’t be arrested for that.
2) We are overly sensitive and college and universities in their pursuit of “safe spaces” have made it worse. Yes, as a student you have every right to protest a racist, sexist or generally offensive speaker on your campus. Please do in fact. But preventing speakers from coming by signing petitions or claiming it violates your “safe space” isn’t always for the best. Because when the tables are flipped and conservative students protest a Trans, feminist – whatever speaker; they are regarded as offensive and in the wrong. And I think more importantly, know your enemy and not even your enemy just learn different views.
3) In the same vein of learning different views – that there are dangers to identity group politics. By saying things like “check your privilege” and stating that only those within a certain identity group can make statements – you limit the conversation. I agree with this – Hume takes it a little too far (as a white male journalist he can’t help himself) and I disagree on the reason but I think this is true. Again, know your enemy. I’m not saying the privileged won’t be wrong or offensive or condescending – they will (case in point right here). But isn’t it better to know – for people to say the wrong offensive thing and learn from it?
Issues with Hume’s argument:
1) Hume claims that too many trigger happy “liberals” are bullying offensive people on social media into retractions of statements or getting people fired. Yes, you are allowed to say whatever offensive thing you want. But Hume doesn’t acknowledge that the other side, the annoying easily offended, has just as much right to say whatever they want and bully the offender.
2) People shouldn’t get fired for saying offensive things – or demoted or whatever. This seems right – except here’s the catch. Most jobs involve some sort of social component and if you reveal yourself to be intolerant in your private life, odds are good that this carries over into your work life. If a banker is a Neo-Nazi and attend rallies, odds are good that his or her service as a banker to black people is pretty poor. Because our private and public lives are not that clearly divided. We are human, our prejudices and our feelings seep into our professional lives even if we don’t mean them to. Maybe there are exceptions to this rule – maybe if a job is entirely solitary or if a person really can prove to have not let their personal prejudices affect their work life. (If that person exists – they should probably be world dictator).
3) Oh so much white male privilege. (And why oh why do they always want to be able to say the n-word? Or deny rape? I do not understand.)
4) Words do not have power. Hume claims that we have given words power by claiming offense and in fact they are just words. By making them taboo – that’s what gives them power. I think he misses two points.
One, by a word like the n-word to be used freely – it makes it ok to say. It allows those prejudices associated with the use of that word to continue. Or “like a girl.” To throw “like a girl” means to throw badly, weakly, whatever. And to continue to use this phrase, even casually, unintentionally, or as a joke, attaches stereotypes that women are less than, not as good, etc. Guess what? I throw like a girl all the time. Because I am a girl. All the time.
Two, as a journalist who is writing to make a point – if words have no power than what’s the point? What’s the point of discussion/debate at all? (I realize this is a bit Reductio ad absurdum but I couldn’t resist.)
Other thoughts/issues:
1) Trigger warnings on books – originally used to prevent PTSD and other trauma sufferers to be safe from triggering content. Have we become to slap happy with the trigger warnings we mark on things? I think so. This is an interesting issue as a librarian (especially with banned books week right around the corner) because while anyone can check anything out should we put labels to inform parents of content? Is it information or is it censorship? One of my favorite book review websites is very pro – trigger warning on books because people should get to read what they like but then they get up in arms when people try to claim they don’t read diversely because they don’t relate to “other” type characters. Hume isn’t wrong – trigger warnings are a slippery slope.
2) Holocaust (and other genocidal/crime) and climate change denial - This is mostly having to do with genocide denial. Yes, individuals have the right to deny the Holocaust or climate change. They are wrong but that is their prerogative as a free individual in a free country. However, what about state denial of a genocidal action? We wouldn’t allow that. Germany was forced to pay reparations after WWII; Turkey still can’t get membership into the EU because of its denial of the Armenian genocide (and other factors but this is definitely still one). Where does the individual end and the state begin? If you’re state is legally required to pay reparations for war crimes – can you as an individual of that state really deny those crimes?
3) Also, in general this book isn’t written very well. It reads like an undergraduate thesis and is both repetitive and rambling.
After I finished this book yesterday, I prepared to give a scathing review about privilege and obligations of safety; that most private companies have contracts that require certain behavior as part of at-will employment, that the bullying and those social media trigger happy criers of “offensive,” “racist” and even “check your privilege” while annoying are within their rights of free speech to say those things too. And then I saw a post on my Facebook feed.
Some “liberal” morally high-minded individual put a post about how disgusted she was that Charlie Hebdo put a cartoon of the dead Syrian child Aylan Kurdi, claiming it was “disrespectful” and “disgusting” and “f-ed up.” This same person posted on January 12th “JE SUIS CHARLIE” – Well, than not exactly dear, not exactly. This is exactly the kind of double speak that Mick Hume writes about in Trigger Warning.
So let me make my thoughts as brief as possible. First the points that Mick Hume makes well.
1) No one should be arrested for using offensive language, offending anyone, verbal bullying, whatever. And he has excellent examples of cases where this hasn’t been so – see the arrest of Walker and Weston Romens, who were alleged to have chanted ‘abusive comments of a racial nature’ on a train leaving Glasgow’s Queen Street station on 31 January. (http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/16/men-arr...) This is wrong – I agree. And not just because they were re-enacting a scene. Even if the witness had been correct that they had been chanting “abuses of a racial nature” – still shouldn’t be arrested for that.
2) We are overly sensitive and college and universities in their pursuit of “safe spaces” have made it worse. Yes, as a student you have every right to protest a racist, sexist or generally offensive speaker on your campus. Please do in fact. But preventing speakers from coming by signing petitions or claiming it violates your “safe space” isn’t always for the best. Because when the tables are flipped and conservative students protest a Trans, feminist – whatever speaker; they are regarded as offensive and in the wrong. And I think more importantly, know your enemy and not even your enemy just learn different views.
3) In the same vein of learning different views – that there are dangers to identity group politics. By saying things like “check your privilege” and stating that only those within a certain identity group can make statements – you limit the conversation. I agree with this – Hume takes it a little too far (as a white male journalist he can’t help himself) and I disagree on the reason but I think this is true. Again, know your enemy. I’m not saying the privileged won’t be wrong or offensive or condescending – they will (case in point right here). But isn’t it better to know – for people to say the wrong offensive thing and learn from it?
Issues with Hume’s argument:
1) Hume claims that too many trigger happy “liberals” are bullying offensive people on social media into retractions of statements or getting people fired. Yes, you are allowed to say whatever offensive thing you want. But Hume doesn’t acknowledge that the other side, the annoying easily offended, has just as much right to say whatever they want and bully the offender.
2) People shouldn’t get fired for saying offensive things – or demoted or whatever. This seems right – except here’s the catch. Most jobs involve some sort of social component and if you reveal yourself to be intolerant in your private life, odds are good that this carries over into your work life. If a banker is a Neo-Nazi and attend rallies, odds are good that his or her service as a banker to black people is pretty poor. Because our private and public lives are not that clearly divided. We are human, our prejudices and our feelings seep into our professional lives even if we don’t mean them to. Maybe there are exceptions to this rule – maybe if a job is entirely solitary or if a person really can prove to have not let their personal prejudices affect their work life. (If that person exists – they should probably be world dictator).
3) Oh so much white male privilege. (And why oh why do they always want to be able to say the n-word? Or deny rape? I do not understand.)
4) Words do not have power. Hume claims that we have given words power by claiming offense and in fact they are just words. By making them taboo – that’s what gives them power. I think he misses two points.
One, by a word like the n-word to be used freely – it makes it ok to say. It allows those prejudices associated with the use of that word to continue. Or “like a girl.” To throw “like a girl” means to throw badly, weakly, whatever. And to continue to use this phrase, even casually, unintentionally, or as a joke, attaches stereotypes that women are less than, not as good, etc. Guess what? I throw like a girl all the time. Because I am a girl. All the time.
Two, as a journalist who is writing to make a point – if words have no power than what’s the point? What’s the point of discussion/debate at all? (I realize this is a bit Reductio ad absurdum but I couldn’t resist.)
Other thoughts/issues:
1) Trigger warnings on books – originally used to prevent PTSD and other trauma sufferers to be safe from triggering content. Have we become to slap happy with the trigger warnings we mark on things? I think so. This is an interesting issue as a librarian (especially with banned books week right around the corner) because while anyone can check anything out should we put labels to inform parents of content? Is it information or is it censorship? One of my favorite book review websites is very pro – trigger warning on books because people should get to read what they like but then they get up in arms when people try to claim they don’t read diversely because they don’t relate to “other” type characters. Hume isn’t wrong – trigger warnings are a slippery slope.
2) Holocaust (and other genocidal/crime) and climate change denial - This is mostly having to do with genocide denial. Yes, individuals have the right to deny the Holocaust or climate change. They are wrong but that is their prerogative as a free individual in a free country. However, what about state denial of a genocidal action? We wouldn’t allow that. Germany was forced to pay reparations after WWII; Turkey still can’t get membership into the EU because of its denial of the Armenian genocide (and other factors but this is definitely still one). Where does the individual end and the state begin? If you’re state is legally required to pay reparations for war crimes – can you as an individual of that state really deny those crimes?
3) Also, in general this book isn’t written very well. It reads like an undergraduate thesis and is both repetitive and rambling.
August 3, 2015
Absolutely excellent! I felt like I wanted to read bits out to everybody all the time, and pretty much every page has some quote worthy lines. The argument for allowing unrestrained free speech is convincingly put forward, and I felt Mick Hume covered all the relevant points thoroughly. If I could I'd make this compulsory reading!
February 4, 2017
This book raises some pretty good points but there's far too much repetition and it feels as if there is no structure. Also, the author seems to contradict himself: he's concerned about free speech but considers massive public response to controversial opinions a form of "unofficial censorship". To me there's no such thing as unofficial censorship. Censorship is something that is enforced by institutions and authorities.
However Mick Hume shares some pretty good examples of how the left is becoming increasingly intolerant towards intolerants (funny thing, heh?), refusing to create a dialogue; and how political correctness infantilises people and harms progress.
Essentially, I think this debate is relevant in this day and age, but to be honest I felt like it would be enough just to read the epilogue, as it sums up ideas that were repeated over and over throughout the chapters.
However Mick Hume shares some pretty good examples of how the left is becoming increasingly intolerant towards intolerants (funny thing, heh?), refusing to create a dialogue; and how political correctness infantilises people and harms progress.
Essentially, I think this debate is relevant in this day and age, but to be honest I felt like it would be enough just to read the epilogue, as it sums up ideas that were repeated over and over throughout the chapters.
November 20, 2015
The False Security of Consensus
If you believe in the free expression of ideas, either as a speaker or a listener, this is an impassioned look at the erosion of free speech in our time.
The Good Bits:
We deny the right to free speech at our own peril. Not only is the speaker’s right to express involved, but also the listener’s right to hear. Without the ability to hear contrary, racist, xenophobic, conspiracy theorist, appalling opinions, we will lose the ability to defend our own views. No one will need to learn the history of the Holocaust because it will be illegal to discuss anything but the official version to which we are all supposed to agree. Christopher Hitchens was ever so eloquent on this point in one of his myriad debates: “What would you do if you met a Flat Earth Society Member? Come to think of it, how can I prove the Earth is round? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.” Cranks, anti-Semites, bigots must all be allowed to express their opinions without outlawing them. We have a far more powerful and lasting tool at our disposal: we can smash and marginalize those opinions with superior argument.
The book is well organized, and it works most effectively when summarizing the recent infringements of free speech of the last century (more vividly in the last 15 years). Some of the examples were unknown to me and truly horrifying. In reading them, I often wondered if human beings, at heart, simply wish to be intellectual slaves. Throughout history there seems to be a recurring theme of proscribing contrary views as soon as possible, like moths to a flame. Hume also does an excellent job of dispelling the misapprehensions about Oliver Wendel Holmes' "crowded theatre" ruling. I admit that liberals in the United States promulgate much of the hypersensitivity on college campuses, seemingly so different even from my college days 10 years ago. It is a sad thing to say, but on this issue of free speech and political correctness, some men and women I admire are farcically wayward. Weird to say, but in 2015, Paul Krugman and Barack Obama are much less cogent than Trey Parker and Matt Stone on defending free speech in America.
Negatives:
Hume only strays in his final two chapters, in my estimation. He gets overtly political, and while he has disdain for both parties, he insists that there is an ongoing attempt to muzzle the press, mostly by the political left. As a leftist himself, he decries this. However, his examples are feeble. The notorious News of the World tabloid in Britain was closed largely due to a giant police inquest (the largest in British history). Seems over-the-top to invest so much time and attention to a mere tabloid, yes? But they were not indicted for spreading calumny or insinuating Tom Cruise was gay or any such item. They were illegally taping conversations of private individuals and also manipulated the voicemail box of a kidnapped child who was killed soon thereafter, and in so doing misled the family into believing their daughter was alive. If there is a free speech issue involved (I wouldn’t want to live in a world without ridicule of sanctimonious celebrities), it takes a back seat to real legal infractions that caused real harm. Hume's point gets lost in bad examples like these.
He also defends Philip Morris, the Koch brothers, and other large corporations’ rights to free speech, which (he contends) should be treated like any private individual’s. I contest this because of context, which Hume is constantly invoking. In the United Stated and the UK, we share risk and cost of disease burden. A large burden of, say, smoking, should be discouraged not just because it is decent (not enough in of itself) but because it causes harm affecting all in society. It is not illegal to have vices or to smoke. A multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation can and does pressure dissenting voices (scientific, lay press) that could diminish profits. Nicotine is also physiologically addictive. Plain packaging laws, that is to say – a token restriction on the advertising of poison to a population who collectively shares the burden of the effects of the poisonings -- is not the subversion of Philip Morris’ right to express their opinion. To object to the placement of factual information on carcinogens is a reductio ad absurdum and further insults the intelligence of the populace, something Hume derides in myriad other cases.
One other small critique, which has been made by others. The rejoinder “I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” has been variously attributed to many, including Voltaire. Hume refers to those contesting free speech as “reverse-Voltaires” many times throughout the book. Many many times. This grows tiresome, because while exactly on point it simply doesn’t have a nice ring to it, and after 30 invocations feels stale and awkward. Don't let this disclaimer steer you away from what is otherwise a tight, important book.
If you believe in the free expression of ideas, either as a speaker or a listener, this is an impassioned look at the erosion of free speech in our time.
The Good Bits:
We deny the right to free speech at our own peril. Not only is the speaker’s right to express involved, but also the listener’s right to hear. Without the ability to hear contrary, racist, xenophobic, conspiracy theorist, appalling opinions, we will lose the ability to defend our own views. No one will need to learn the history of the Holocaust because it will be illegal to discuss anything but the official version to which we are all supposed to agree. Christopher Hitchens was ever so eloquent on this point in one of his myriad debates: “What would you do if you met a Flat Earth Society Member? Come to think of it, how can I prove the Earth is round? Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus.” Cranks, anti-Semites, bigots must all be allowed to express their opinions without outlawing them. We have a far more powerful and lasting tool at our disposal: we can smash and marginalize those opinions with superior argument.
The book is well organized, and it works most effectively when summarizing the recent infringements of free speech of the last century (more vividly in the last 15 years). Some of the examples were unknown to me and truly horrifying. In reading them, I often wondered if human beings, at heart, simply wish to be intellectual slaves. Throughout history there seems to be a recurring theme of proscribing contrary views as soon as possible, like moths to a flame. Hume also does an excellent job of dispelling the misapprehensions about Oliver Wendel Holmes' "crowded theatre" ruling. I admit that liberals in the United States promulgate much of the hypersensitivity on college campuses, seemingly so different even from my college days 10 years ago. It is a sad thing to say, but on this issue of free speech and political correctness, some men and women I admire are farcically wayward. Weird to say, but in 2015, Paul Krugman and Barack Obama are much less cogent than Trey Parker and Matt Stone on defending free speech in America.
Negatives:
Hume only strays in his final two chapters, in my estimation. He gets overtly political, and while he has disdain for both parties, he insists that there is an ongoing attempt to muzzle the press, mostly by the political left. As a leftist himself, he decries this. However, his examples are feeble. The notorious News of the World tabloid in Britain was closed largely due to a giant police inquest (the largest in British history). Seems over-the-top to invest so much time and attention to a mere tabloid, yes? But they were not indicted for spreading calumny or insinuating Tom Cruise was gay or any such item. They were illegally taping conversations of private individuals and also manipulated the voicemail box of a kidnapped child who was killed soon thereafter, and in so doing misled the family into believing their daughter was alive. If there is a free speech issue involved (I wouldn’t want to live in a world without ridicule of sanctimonious celebrities), it takes a back seat to real legal infractions that caused real harm. Hume's point gets lost in bad examples like these.
He also defends Philip Morris, the Koch brothers, and other large corporations’ rights to free speech, which (he contends) should be treated like any private individual’s. I contest this because of context, which Hume is constantly invoking. In the United Stated and the UK, we share risk and cost of disease burden. A large burden of, say, smoking, should be discouraged not just because it is decent (not enough in of itself) but because it causes harm affecting all in society. It is not illegal to have vices or to smoke. A multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation can and does pressure dissenting voices (scientific, lay press) that could diminish profits. Nicotine is also physiologically addictive. Plain packaging laws, that is to say – a token restriction on the advertising of poison to a population who collectively shares the burden of the effects of the poisonings -- is not the subversion of Philip Morris’ right to express their opinion. To object to the placement of factual information on carcinogens is a reductio ad absurdum and further insults the intelligence of the populace, something Hume derides in myriad other cases.
One other small critique, which has been made by others. The rejoinder “I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it” has been variously attributed to many, including Voltaire. Hume refers to those contesting free speech as “reverse-Voltaires” many times throughout the book. Many many times. This grows tiresome, because while exactly on point it simply doesn’t have a nice ring to it, and after 30 invocations feels stale and awkward. Don't let this disclaimer steer you away from what is otherwise a tight, important book.
November 1, 2015
I'm mostly subscribed to the author's idea of free speech fundamentalism but the book itself has some editorial problems - too much repetition. I'm deeply passionate about this topic but took almost an entire week to get through this book, at times even finding it a chore, mostly because of its repetitiveness. He could have also stood to perhaps footnote a bit more (which is not to say that he doesn't support his arguments) for the sake of being comprehensive. Anyway, for me, a good and mostly convincing thesis slightly let down stylistically.
February 29, 2020
I'm very conflicted about this book, because whilst I am a definite believer in free speech, the lengths that Mick Hume went to defend some nasty people is quite unsettling. Why is it that whenever you want to defend a general theological stance that you can step on the toes of other people because you inadvertently need to support some racists in order to get your message across?
In short - sometimes things are maybe insensitive/offensive but not racist. And sometimes defending free speech means defending people who use it against your own beliefs. Sadly, it's the price we have to pay.
In short - sometimes things are maybe insensitive/offensive but not racist. And sometimes defending free speech means defending people who use it against your own beliefs. Sadly, it's the price we have to pay.
August 17, 2015
review to come
October 15, 2023
First and foremost, I am a U. S. reader reviewing a book by a U. K. author. In this case it matters. TRIGGER WARNING talks about the history of free speech and free press in both countries in terms of each individually and as an Anglo-American phenomenon. Here in the U. S., we adopted much of our Constitution and Amendments from what we knew of the Magna Carta and subsequent additions of rights for the people. The founding fathers started with what they knew, and what they wanted to change. The major emphasis of the book is on U. K. law.
Second, I love the fact that Hume says, right up front, that freedom of speech is almost always stated as freedom of speech, but. It's the 'buts' that are the focus of the narrative no matter which side of the pond the statement is made.
TRIGGER WARNING is the book to read to get a real appreciation for the underlying import of free speech and freedom of the press. A point of personal privilege: before reading TRIGGER WARNING, I never thought about the why freedom of the press is called that. In detailing the history of free speech and press, Mick Hume explains that in order to use the printing press in the early days, it was necessary to get a license from the crown. That license gave the crown the right to dictate what could be printed on the licensed press. The removal of these strictures literally freed the actual machine itself from government oversight.
I was quite astonished at some of the examples given of the actions on college campuses both in the U. S. and the U. K. Professors are being required to put trigger warnings on their syllabi. Perhaps the most shocking warning to me was warning law students that such and such a class would cover rape law. Along with the trigger warning, any student who felt uncomfortable studying rape law was excused from the assignment. Are you now totally appalled? I sure as hell was! And, this is not happening in traditionally conservative institutions, it is happening in liberal bastions of education. Think of the ways this could impact medical schools. Faint at the sight of blood? No worries, you can skip all those classes. Touch a cadaver? Gross, yes! Necessary to become a doctor? You damn right it is.
You may be familiar with the Voltaire quote “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is unequivocal. Hume posits that we are now living in the time of reverse Voltaire, and the mantra is something like: ‘Think of yourself and don’t let others enjoy the privilege of thinking any differently.’
The reverse Voltaire theme is peppered throughout the narrative along with today's reasons for limiting free speech ranging from Oliver Wendell Holmes reference to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre (usually mentioned without that all important 'falsely') to the invectives now only referred to with a single letter.
Things have only gotten worse since the book was published in 2016, and I would certainly like to see a follow-up. In any case, I believe TRIGGER WARNING is well worth the read for anyone who needs a refresher on the concept of free speech.
Second, I love the fact that Hume says, right up front, that freedom of speech is almost always stated as freedom of speech, but. It's the 'buts' that are the focus of the narrative no matter which side of the pond the statement is made.
TRIGGER WARNING is the book to read to get a real appreciation for the underlying import of free speech and freedom of the press. A point of personal privilege: before reading TRIGGER WARNING, I never thought about the why freedom of the press is called that. In detailing the history of free speech and press, Mick Hume explains that in order to use the printing press in the early days, it was necessary to get a license from the crown. That license gave the crown the right to dictate what could be printed on the licensed press. The removal of these strictures literally freed the actual machine itself from government oversight.
I was quite astonished at some of the examples given of the actions on college campuses both in the U. S. and the U. K. Professors are being required to put trigger warnings on their syllabi. Perhaps the most shocking warning to me was warning law students that such and such a class would cover rape law. Along with the trigger warning, any student who felt uncomfortable studying rape law was excused from the assignment. Are you now totally appalled? I sure as hell was! And, this is not happening in traditionally conservative institutions, it is happening in liberal bastions of education. Think of the ways this could impact medical schools. Faint at the sight of blood? No worries, you can skip all those classes. Touch a cadaver? Gross, yes! Necessary to become a doctor? You damn right it is.
You may be familiar with the Voltaire quote “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is unequivocal. Hume posits that we are now living in the time of reverse Voltaire, and the mantra is something like: ‘Think of yourself and don’t let others enjoy the privilege of thinking any differently.’
The reverse Voltaire theme is peppered throughout the narrative along with today's reasons for limiting free speech ranging from Oliver Wendell Holmes reference to falsely yelling fire in a crowded theatre (usually mentioned without that all important 'falsely') to the invectives now only referred to with a single letter.
Things have only gotten worse since the book was published in 2016, and I would certainly like to see a follow-up. In any case, I believe TRIGGER WARNING is well worth the read for anyone who needs a refresher on the concept of free speech.
May 15, 2020
The author undoubtedly presents a passionate and extremely important defense of freedom of expression, pointing out in an extensive way the various risks (some of which often go unnoticed) threatening it. However, the author sometimes incurs in logical leaps so large that they weaken the arguments presented; on the other hand, and not infrequently, he uses examples that become perfectly out of context to defend his points of view. At the editorial level, we see a recurring use (which turns out to be boring) of equal expressions throughout the book, which could easily have been suppressed in favor of an easier and more open reading. The struggle for freedom of expression is undoubtedly a fundamental struggle, and one that must be actively fought by all. The right to express the thoughts of others, especially the ideas we detest, is fundamental to the development of cultured and sustainable societies. Mick Humme rightly calls our attention to that; the way in which he does it could be more interesting.
July 13, 2017
Absolutamente essencial. A liberdade de expressão é posta em causa todos os dias, em todo o lado. Por vezes, não nos apercebemos da sua importância ou das ameaças que enfrenta. Este livro, escrito depois do ataque ao Charlie Hebdo, apresenta argumentos para a defesa incondicional da liberdade de expressão, e mostra que limitar este direito tem consequências desastrosas.
August 8, 2019
I found it to be a great read in the sense that it challenged my approach to some of the examples presented. I cannot see that I agree 100% with everything that is said, but I'll definitely be paying more attention to certain trends and questioning certain offense - driven reactions before assuming a position of my own.
May 18, 2019
Já há tempo que não lia um livro que despertasse em mim tamanha revolta.
Ter contacto com uma realidade onde somos todos "a favor da liberdade expressão mas...", pela escrita de Hume, deixou-me com revolta e com medo do que pode vir num futuro próximo.
Ter contacto com uma realidade onde somos todos "a favor da liberdade expressão mas...", pela escrita de Hume, deixou-me com revolta e com medo do que pode vir num futuro próximo.
July 29, 2016
It was difficult to decide what rating to give this. Although I agree with the general argument of the book, I had quite a few problems with it.
The approach Hume used to get his point across was very black and white: complete free speech or no free speech at all. I didn't really understand why this was. He seemed to underestimate the impact of words on actions - he acted as if what you say doesn't incite people to do things, unless, of course, these people are imbeciles. This, in my mind, isn't strictly true when you think about the impact of holy scriptures and religious sermons upon people of faith; intelligent people can be incited to any number of things with worded persuasion.
The nature of the text was very repetitive and at times disrespectful - there was contempt for transgender people, which I found somewhat distasteful. The comparisons made were perhaps a little melodramatic, because personally I think Orwell's dystopia is a little farther off than Hume might be trying to suggest. Hate speech was sort of downplayed as "criticism", which was weird and just sort of... wrong?
I know it seems like I hated the entire thing, considering the number of problems I had with it, but the text was very dense, so there was a lot to wade through. I liked Hume's point on the blurred line between words that offend and literal hate speech; it does seem that people don't really understand the difference anymore. His point about the idea of a "phobia" denoting a mental illness and rendering the interlocutor not worth arguing with was interesting too. So I did like some of it.
At the end of the day, yeah, parts of the book offended me, but I suppose Hume would argue that it's his right to free speech to say them. And how can I argue with that?
The approach Hume used to get his point across was very black and white: complete free speech or no free speech at all. I didn't really understand why this was. He seemed to underestimate the impact of words on actions - he acted as if what you say doesn't incite people to do things, unless, of course, these people are imbeciles. This, in my mind, isn't strictly true when you think about the impact of holy scriptures and religious sermons upon people of faith; intelligent people can be incited to any number of things with worded persuasion.
The nature of the text was very repetitive and at times disrespectful - there was contempt for transgender people, which I found somewhat distasteful. The comparisons made were perhaps a little melodramatic, because personally I think Orwell's dystopia is a little farther off than Hume might be trying to suggest. Hate speech was sort of downplayed as "criticism", which was weird and just sort of... wrong?
I know it seems like I hated the entire thing, considering the number of problems I had with it, but the text was very dense, so there was a lot to wade through. I liked Hume's point on the blurred line between words that offend and literal hate speech; it does seem that people don't really understand the difference anymore. His point about the idea of a "phobia" denoting a mental illness and rendering the interlocutor not worth arguing with was interesting too. So I did like some of it.
At the end of the day, yeah, parts of the book offended me, but I suppose Hume would argue that it's his right to free speech to say them. And how can I argue with that?
December 31, 2022
The theme of this book, freedom of speech, is very dear to me. Unfortunately, there are parts where the book itself could have been better written/argued/edited.
Even though, it raises awareness to an extremely important subject, how freedom of speech is being slowly taken away in the name of things such as political correctness, identity politics and oversensitiveness.
The cases it presents, either American universities which are toning down material to avoid offending students, or British laws that put people in court for saying stupid things in private, are well worth the read.
-----
Update: several years after, I think the arguments in the book did not age well, and mostly disagree with what is said.
Even though, it raises awareness to an extremely important subject, how freedom of speech is being slowly taken away in the name of things such as political correctness, identity politics and oversensitiveness.
The cases it presents, either American universities which are toning down material to avoid offending students, or British laws that put people in court for saying stupid things in private, are well worth the read.
-----
Update: several years after, I think the arguments in the book did not age well, and mostly disagree with what is said.
February 20, 2016
Yeeeeees, I agree with just about everything Mick Hume writes in this book, but does he have to make every point a hundred times?
I find it extremely ironic that a book on free speech would have been much improved by a strict editor telling the author to shut the fuck up.
I find it extremely ironic that a book on free speech would have been much improved by a strict editor telling the author to shut the fuck up.
March 11, 2016
An exceptional and brutal takedown of free speech fraudsters, which sheds light on the disturbing state of the regressive left. As more "safe spaces" pop up on campuses and more speakers are no platformed, this couldn't have come at a better time.
November 1, 2016
Achei-o um bocadinho cansativa.
Tem momentos interessantes mas acaba por ser redundante e não colocar argumentos novos.
Tem momentos interessantes mas acaba por ser redundante e não colocar argumentos novos.
November 27, 2022
I read the concise and abridged addition which comes in at 135 pages.
I'm someone who is more absolutist on free speech than my family, though I draw the line at clearly inciting violence and promoting violence. Therefore this book should have appealed to me and in the main it did, although there were parts I wasn't convinced by or didn't agree with.
The book gives a good explanation of how freedom of speech developed in the USA and UK and how one of the key engine drivers of the enlightenment was free speech. I learnt a lot about how the first amendment developed in the USA and how it came under threat from the pro slavery South, during wartime, treason law and the Red scare. I thought the book was particularly strong on highlighting how Frederick Douglas pushed for free speech so the truth about slavery could be told, rather than southern politicians and the leaders of Southern States being able to gag it.
The author is also strong on highlighting how freedom of speech means also the freedom to challenge bad arguments and lies with better speech. I think this is important as too often we don't seem nowadays to have the confidence in our own arguments, so turn to censorship, no platforming and banning. This allows bad arguments to go unchallenged and also plays in yo their hands, as they can paint a conspiracy of being seen as martyrs for free speech.
The book is relatively strong when it talks about the need for even vile speech to be allowed and argued against rather than banned, citing Lipstadt's belief when it comes to Holocaust denial.
I do think the writer is a bit obsessed by trigger warnings and blows it out of proportion. Though I'm generally not a fan, trigger warnings don't stop people from hearing or reading things, they just warn that what they hear, see or read they find disturbing. I do this when showing images of violence and death. Now I think particularly at universities they are far too ubiquitous and mollcoddle students trying to create a safe space, when the marketplace of ideas should be unsafe and challenging but it doesn't ban speech and in some cases can be helpful.
I also think he downplays especially in the 24 hour media age, social media and the Internet the issue of fake news. I believe firmly like Hume in the freedom of the press, but he states that media don't set the agenda or create news, yet as we have seen with PizzaGate, QAnon, child abuse conspiracies which weren't true and more, purveyors of news can set the news and create the news based on lies and it can lead to situations such as the insurrection in to capital. The answer isn't to censor a free press, but we do need to get far better on actively with our own speech countering disinformation. Pretending that there isn't an issue with fake news simply isn't accurate.
I also think the author whilst write in general on how far too often comparisons with the Holocaust are drawn is wrong to say particularly when it comes to Srebenica that the actions of Serbia under Milosevic didn't merit comparisons with the Holocaust in my view they did. I do wonder given his background at Living Marxism who denied the genocide at Srebenica if that has coloured his thoughts here.
The author writes relatively well on the impact of identity politics on free speech. I agree with a lot of what he says on it, though not all.
Tne book is in general a well argued defence of free speech and answers many of those who say they are for free speech, but then seek to handcuff the free speech of us all. He is also write to warn about the silent assault on free speech from those who claim to be for free speech, but particularly when it comes to freedom to offfend, freedom to express hateful views, freedom to challenge the status quo and freedom of the press. They are wolves in sheep's clothing when it comes to the attempts to undermine free speech and sadly in recent years both in terms of legislation, but also self censorship at universities they have been winning the argument.
Its time free speech advocates like me fight back and defend free speech and this book though inperfect provides some concise good arguments on how to fight back intellectually.
I'm someone who is more absolutist on free speech than my family, though I draw the line at clearly inciting violence and promoting violence. Therefore this book should have appealed to me and in the main it did, although there were parts I wasn't convinced by or didn't agree with.
The book gives a good explanation of how freedom of speech developed in the USA and UK and how one of the key engine drivers of the enlightenment was free speech. I learnt a lot about how the first amendment developed in the USA and how it came under threat from the pro slavery South, during wartime, treason law and the Red scare. I thought the book was particularly strong on highlighting how Frederick Douglas pushed for free speech so the truth about slavery could be told, rather than southern politicians and the leaders of Southern States being able to gag it.
The author is also strong on highlighting how freedom of speech means also the freedom to challenge bad arguments and lies with better speech. I think this is important as too often we don't seem nowadays to have the confidence in our own arguments, so turn to censorship, no platforming and banning. This allows bad arguments to go unchallenged and also plays in yo their hands, as they can paint a conspiracy of being seen as martyrs for free speech.
The book is relatively strong when it talks about the need for even vile speech to be allowed and argued against rather than banned, citing Lipstadt's belief when it comes to Holocaust denial.
I do think the writer is a bit obsessed by trigger warnings and blows it out of proportion. Though I'm generally not a fan, trigger warnings don't stop people from hearing or reading things, they just warn that what they hear, see or read they find disturbing. I do this when showing images of violence and death. Now I think particularly at universities they are far too ubiquitous and mollcoddle students trying to create a safe space, when the marketplace of ideas should be unsafe and challenging but it doesn't ban speech and in some cases can be helpful.
I also think he downplays especially in the 24 hour media age, social media and the Internet the issue of fake news. I believe firmly like Hume in the freedom of the press, but he states that media don't set the agenda or create news, yet as we have seen with PizzaGate, QAnon, child abuse conspiracies which weren't true and more, purveyors of news can set the news and create the news based on lies and it can lead to situations such as the insurrection in to capital. The answer isn't to censor a free press, but we do need to get far better on actively with our own speech countering disinformation. Pretending that there isn't an issue with fake news simply isn't accurate.
I also think the author whilst write in general on how far too often comparisons with the Holocaust are drawn is wrong to say particularly when it comes to Srebenica that the actions of Serbia under Milosevic didn't merit comparisons with the Holocaust in my view they did. I do wonder given his background at Living Marxism who denied the genocide at Srebenica if that has coloured his thoughts here.
The author writes relatively well on the impact of identity politics on free speech. I agree with a lot of what he says on it, though not all.
Tne book is in general a well argued defence of free speech and answers many of those who say they are for free speech, but then seek to handcuff the free speech of us all. He is also write to warn about the silent assault on free speech from those who claim to be for free speech, but particularly when it comes to freedom to offfend, freedom to express hateful views, freedom to challenge the status quo and freedom of the press. They are wolves in sheep's clothing when it comes to the attempts to undermine free speech and sadly in recent years both in terms of legislation, but also self censorship at universities they have been winning the argument.
Its time free speech advocates like me fight back and defend free speech and this book though inperfect provides some concise good arguments on how to fight back intellectually.
October 19, 2020
I can only imagine what the unabridged version was like as this repeated itself over and over from about page five until the end of the appendix.
There was so much wrong with Trigger Warning, I hardly know where to start. Here goes.
Hume's argument is that there can be no restrictions on free speech or it ceases to be a right and is contingent on the whim of another entity. Except for the exceptions he notes of course. The only one I think is intended to be serious is the direct threat of violence. So i should be free to publish your address, a list of heinous things you may or may not have done and detailed directions to where an axe is buried, but as long as i don't directly threaten you that is fine? More prosaicly, i think indirect threats of violence especially toward women, especially on Twitter amount to direct threats ("Someone should rape you" etc). This comes out in the first few pages, so the book is wrong headed and contradictory from the get go.
There is a section where he touches on how access to the mass media is restricted to the rich and powerful so one person's freedom of speech isn't the same as another (a point he attributes to Steve Coogan). Instead of engaging with this he just breezes past it. This would have been worth exploring - a case where The Sun printed a photo of someones landlord on the front page and accused him of murder springs to mind. He didn't do it, but what weight does his protest of innocence have against a media juggernaut?
Adverts should be unrestricted. No, obviously they shouldn't. The manufacturer has plenty to gain by misleading you, that is why they are regulated. Hume believes you should have the right to choose for yourself. By that argument, get the lead back in the paint, it's up to little Jimmy if he wants to eat it! This is in a section where lying is an acceptable form of free speech. By the appendix, being truthful is part of free speech apparently, an example of where the author's argument lacks even internal consistency. I would get into how can you define "truth", but this review is already on track to be the same length as the book.
One of the most irritating, and often mentioned, points in the book is that if you have objectionable ideas you should be able to express them so they can be freely debated and a better argument can win you over. I find it difficult to believe that the author is truly so naive as to think that Holocaust deniers (an example he uses) base their views on which version of history has the most empirical evidence and rational argument to support it.The same applies to many other topics, racism, homophobia (Hume doesn't like that word), climate change denial (or that one),flat earthers etc. You aren't going to change the minds of people who's arguments are based solely on emotion via debate.
Hume also conflates Twitter mobs and no platforming with state censorship. He in no way acknowledges that while you have the right to say what you want, no one is obliged to host you or listen to you. Social trends are not the same as legal censorship.
There is plenty of other nonsense here - comparing treatment of climate change deniers with witches being hunted, comparing trigger warnings with "here be dragons"on ancient maps and other barely coherent things.
I think what annoyed me most is that there is so much fertile ground here for intelligent and nuanced argument about what, if any, restrictions free speech should have. Instead you get the literary equivalent of some beery twat down the local pub, shouting in your face for an hour about what's wrong with kids these days.
There was so much wrong with Trigger Warning, I hardly know where to start. Here goes.
Hume's argument is that there can be no restrictions on free speech or it ceases to be a right and is contingent on the whim of another entity. Except for the exceptions he notes of course. The only one I think is intended to be serious is the direct threat of violence. So i should be free to publish your address, a list of heinous things you may or may not have done and detailed directions to where an axe is buried, but as long as i don't directly threaten you that is fine? More prosaicly, i think indirect threats of violence especially toward women, especially on Twitter amount to direct threats ("Someone should rape you" etc). This comes out in the first few pages, so the book is wrong headed and contradictory from the get go.
There is a section where he touches on how access to the mass media is restricted to the rich and powerful so one person's freedom of speech isn't the same as another (a point he attributes to Steve Coogan). Instead of engaging with this he just breezes past it. This would have been worth exploring - a case where The Sun printed a photo of someones landlord on the front page and accused him of murder springs to mind. He didn't do it, but what weight does his protest of innocence have against a media juggernaut?
Adverts should be unrestricted. No, obviously they shouldn't. The manufacturer has plenty to gain by misleading you, that is why they are regulated. Hume believes you should have the right to choose for yourself. By that argument, get the lead back in the paint, it's up to little Jimmy if he wants to eat it! This is in a section where lying is an acceptable form of free speech. By the appendix, being truthful is part of free speech apparently, an example of where the author's argument lacks even internal consistency. I would get into how can you define "truth", but this review is already on track to be the same length as the book.
One of the most irritating, and often mentioned, points in the book is that if you have objectionable ideas you should be able to express them so they can be freely debated and a better argument can win you over. I find it difficult to believe that the author is truly so naive as to think that Holocaust deniers (an example he uses) base their views on which version of history has the most empirical evidence and rational argument to support it.The same applies to many other topics, racism, homophobia (Hume doesn't like that word), climate change denial (or that one),flat earthers etc. You aren't going to change the minds of people who's arguments are based solely on emotion via debate.
Hume also conflates Twitter mobs and no platforming with state censorship. He in no way acknowledges that while you have the right to say what you want, no one is obliged to host you or listen to you. Social trends are not the same as legal censorship.
There is plenty of other nonsense here - comparing treatment of climate change deniers with witches being hunted, comparing trigger warnings with "here be dragons"on ancient maps and other barely coherent things.
I think what annoyed me most is that there is so much fertile ground here for intelligent and nuanced argument about what, if any, restrictions free speech should have. Instead you get the literary equivalent of some beery twat down the local pub, shouting in your face for an hour about what's wrong with kids these days.
July 6, 2025
An essay in defense of freedom of speech with no “buts”. A perspective that I fully agree with. Everyone with more than two brain cells is for freedom of speech, naturally. The issue is with the conditions that different people wish to impose as a limit to this freedom. In my mind, and that of the author I presume, although no right is absolute, freedom of speech is perhaps the one that comes closest to this ideal. This being a right that is indivisible. You either have it, or you don’t. And those that argue that you should limit speech to not offend, to not be racist, homophobic, misogynistic, etc., I believe are missing the point entirely. Freedom of expression is not something that you use to protect yourself from hateful words. Rather it is something that you defend in protection of “the thought that we hate.” The restriction of speech because any one person or group has been offended is an intolerable limitation of this right. Especially since freedom of speech was first and foremost established to protect those that held views different from the mainstream. A right that was fought over for the heretics, the atheists, the witches, and later for women, the black community, the gays. These communities fought for more rights, for more freedom to express themselves and their views, and ultimately to be granted standing as equal members of society. But now… now it seems that we got it all backwards. The historically marginalized communities and minorities are at the forefront for the suppression of dissenting views, if not directly, at least covertly (read, cancel culture, trigger warnings, intellectual safe places, etc.). This is odd. If anything, we need more freedom of speech, not less. This attempt to automatically discredit others by calling them deniers, restricting language based on identity, or policing expression (even in the form of offensive generalizations) is a walking contradiction. Anyway, this is but a rant. I guess I’m quite liberal when it comes to freedom of speech. But even the most liberal-minded people understand that there are types of speech that are indeed indefensible: direct threats, blackmail, revealing classified information, malicious defamation, or illegal obscenity (like child pornography). Freedom of speech does not protect these forms of expression. And rightly so. I could be persuaded otherwise but, today, if I were to cast a vote on a law that limits speech of other forms, e.g., hate speech or a general incitement to violence, to name the two most “controversial” ones, I wouldn’t stand behind these restrictions. It’s a slippery slope. Not to mention infantilizing. It assumes that people are too stupid to think for themselves. And I don’t think we should “protect” people from offense and evil thoughts. Rather, we should fight them in the battle of ideas. That’s what freedom of speech is for. We just have to do better.
September 26, 2021
What is ‘free’ about speech if we are only permitted to say that which others find agreeable?
Voltaire is credited with one of the great historical sayings on the subject: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
Voltaire’s principle is a clear statement of the attitude to tolerance and free speech that characterised the Enlightenment. Some might prefer the updated version credited to Oscar Wilde – ‘I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself’ – though the spirit remains much the same. It recognises that free speech is something more than a personal possession, something bigger than a personal opinion
Now, however, we have the rise of the reverse-Voltaires. The cri de coeur of
today’s hardcore offence-takers turns his principle inside out: ‘I know I’ll detest and be offended by what you say, and I will defend to the end of free speech my right to stop you saying it.’ The reverse-Voltaires do not wish to dispute ideas or arguments that offend them. They would deny the other person’s right to say it in the first place.*
For the reverse-Voltaires, nothing can be more important than their personal emotions, nothing is bigger than their ego or identity. The only test of whether something should be allowed is how it makes them feel (and most important, how it makes them feel about themselves). Reverse-Voltaires cannot tolerate having their opinions challenged, prejudices questioned, self-image disrespected or toes stepped on. The result is a demand to limit free speech in the name of their right to be protected from words.
Voltaire is credited with one of the great historical sayings on the subject: ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’
Voltaire’s principle is a clear statement of the attitude to tolerance and free speech that characterised the Enlightenment. Some might prefer the updated version credited to Oscar Wilde – ‘I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself’ – though the spirit remains much the same. It recognises that free speech is something more than a personal possession, something bigger than a personal opinion
Now, however, we have the rise of the reverse-Voltaires. The cri de coeur of
today’s hardcore offence-takers turns his principle inside out: ‘I know I’ll detest and be offended by what you say, and I will defend to the end of free speech my right to stop you saying it.’ The reverse-Voltaires do not wish to dispute ideas or arguments that offend them. They would deny the other person’s right to say it in the first place.*
For the reverse-Voltaires, nothing can be more important than their personal emotions, nothing is bigger than their ego or identity. The only test of whether something should be allowed is how it makes them feel (and most important, how it makes them feel about themselves). Reverse-Voltaires cannot tolerate having their opinions challenged, prejudices questioned, self-image disrespected or toes stepped on. The result is a demand to limit free speech in the name of their right to be protected from words.
April 4, 2025
There was far too much repetition, but it was an informative read. Particularly enjoyed these bits:
"It remains indisputable that the rich and powerful inevitably have more opportunity than others to exercise their right to free speech via the media. Even in Anglo-American societies where formal free speech prevails, having a voice that can be heard is not something most of us can take for granted."
"There is a difference between formal legal equal rights and real inequalities in society. As the old saw goes, it is equally illegal for either the rich or the poor to sleep on park benches, but somehow only the poor get arrested for it. Similarly, since the abolition of state licensing, it has been equally possible for anybody to establish a national newspaper or (if they can get the regulators' permission) a television station. Yet somehow only the very rich seem to do so."
"One area which we should definitely be concerned about is the ability of the rich and powerful to prevent critical voices being heard, through the libel laws."
Ultimately, for all this discussion about how rich people are 'being censored' in the media, it is quite telling that they actually get most of the control over it. So we need to acknowledge that some people have more free speech than others, not in a sense of Republicans versus Democrats on college campuses, which is where the arguments always go, but through the general way information and speech are disseminated.
"It remains indisputable that the rich and powerful inevitably have more opportunity than others to exercise their right to free speech via the media. Even in Anglo-American societies where formal free speech prevails, having a voice that can be heard is not something most of us can take for granted."
"There is a difference between formal legal equal rights and real inequalities in society. As the old saw goes, it is equally illegal for either the rich or the poor to sleep on park benches, but somehow only the poor get arrested for it. Similarly, since the abolition of state licensing, it has been equally possible for anybody to establish a national newspaper or (if they can get the regulators' permission) a television station. Yet somehow only the very rich seem to do so."
"One area which we should definitely be concerned about is the ability of the rich and powerful to prevent critical voices being heard, through the libel laws."
Ultimately, for all this discussion about how rich people are 'being censored' in the media, it is quite telling that they actually get most of the control over it. So we need to acknowledge that some people have more free speech than others, not in a sense of Republicans versus Democrats on college campuses, which is where the arguments always go, but through the general way information and speech are disseminated.
October 17, 2020
This book made me think more deeply about truely what free speech means and changed my views on a few points. I always consider that a good measure of a book.
Never heard of this guy but I knew spiked online, the publication and it did fit with the views stated on the website.
Well researched book.
I enjoyed a challenge to the very limited... Almost free speech we in England enjoy while pretending how free we are even amongst hate speech laws that are just a tool to use against the public, should they go to far in the view of whomever is looking to judge on the day.
Everyone says they believe in free speech and then add a..... But.... A limit of how far they feel is appropriate. This book shows why these limitations have no business in the arena of free speech.
Worth a read for sure. Well written
Never heard of this guy but I knew spiked online, the publication and it did fit with the views stated on the website.
Well researched book.
I enjoyed a challenge to the very limited... Almost free speech we in England enjoy while pretending how free we are even amongst hate speech laws that are just a tool to use against the public, should they go to far in the view of whomever is looking to judge on the day.
Everyone says they believe in free speech and then add a..... But.... A limit of how far they feel is appropriate. This book shows why these limitations have no business in the arena of free speech.
Worth a read for sure. Well written
April 2, 2019
My second time reading and I got even more out of it. Great book that should be read by anyone concerned about losing the battle for free speech!
Trigger Warning by veteran journalist Mick Hume should be required reading for everyone who truly values and supports free speech; including those he refers to as But Heads (I support free speech but...). He presents it as an all or nothing idea and points out that the Constitution is very concise in stating Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... Notice there are no except fors or buts! In our increasingly PC culture the buts have been creeping into our society. Many people like to quote Voltaire "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" however today it has morphed into what the author calls a Reverse Voltaire "I know I will detest what you say, and I will fight to the end of free speech for my right to prevent you from saying it" followed by shout downs, protests, intimidation, and even violence to silence opposing voices! This is what America has become with tactics seen and used in National Socialist (Nazi) Germany and Italy as well as in communist regimes around the world. He rightfully argues that the 1st Amendment includes allowing speech we disagree with or find abhorent like that of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, flag burners, and yes even racist speech, as long as it does not conflict with laws against violence. While you may not want to hear certain things being said, you have a choice to listen and refute, walk away, change the channel, etc. We as a society cannot prevent everyone from hearing or seeing things that offend us. Some of the gems he discusses in the book are: We cannot tolerate intolerance!; You're a denier (all-purpose put down in attempt to shut down discussion); You're an apologist (ditto); The debate is over (says who? my favorite, as anti-scientific as you can get)! These are those people (aka snowflakes) who claim potentially hurt feelings are more important than universal free speech. The results are a generation so thin skinned that they seem to wake up every day seeking out what offends them today! Initially I thought the same as a lot of people that some speech is so offensive that it shouldn't be allowed. But Mick Hume has convinced me that whoever gets to decide where to draw that line controls freedom of speech. Who would you trust with that kind of power? The author states that best antidote for hate speech is to let it be heard because the American people (and others) are intelligent enough to see it for what it is and reject it. One of the best and most thought-provoking books I have read recently!
Trigger Warning by veteran journalist Mick Hume should be required reading for everyone who truly values and supports free speech; including those he refers to as But Heads (I support free speech but...). He presents it as an all or nothing idea and points out that the Constitution is very concise in stating Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech... Notice there are no except fors or buts! In our increasingly PC culture the buts have been creeping into our society. Many people like to quote Voltaire "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" however today it has morphed into what the author calls a Reverse Voltaire "I know I will detest what you say, and I will fight to the end of free speech for my right to prevent you from saying it" followed by shout downs, protests, intimidation, and even violence to silence opposing voices! This is what America has become with tactics seen and used in National Socialist (Nazi) Germany and Italy as well as in communist regimes around the world. He rightfully argues that the 1st Amendment includes allowing speech we disagree with or find abhorent like that of the KKK, Neo-Nazis, flag burners, and yes even racist speech, as long as it does not conflict with laws against violence. While you may not want to hear certain things being said, you have a choice to listen and refute, walk away, change the channel, etc. We as a society cannot prevent everyone from hearing or seeing things that offend us. Some of the gems he discusses in the book are: We cannot tolerate intolerance!; You're a denier (all-purpose put down in attempt to shut down discussion); You're an apologist (ditto); The debate is over (says who? my favorite, as anti-scientific as you can get)! These are those people (aka snowflakes) who claim potentially hurt feelings are more important than universal free speech. The results are a generation so thin skinned that they seem to wake up every day seeking out what offends them today! Initially I thought the same as a lot of people that some speech is so offensive that it shouldn't be allowed. But Mick Hume has convinced me that whoever gets to decide where to draw that line controls freedom of speech. Who would you trust with that kind of power? The author states that best antidote for hate speech is to let it be heard because the American people (and others) are intelligent enough to see it for what it is and reject it. One of the best and most thought-provoking books I have read recently!
May 9, 2017
A blood-boiling read that is even more relevant today than when it was written a few years ago. Provides a look at those who were once free speech warriors who have now placed themselves on the opposite side of the debate. If you are a journalist, writer, academic, rhetorician or simply love the first amendment, you should read this book. The only downside: as much as the author proclaims the antidote to bad speech is more speech, he may have taken that too literally. There is much redundancy and he could have used more substantive editing to shave off a 100 pages or more.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews