What do you think?
Rate this book
Redefreiheit: Prinzipien für eine vernetzte Welt
Noch nie konnten so viele Menschen wie heute ihre Meinung auf der ganzen Welt verbreiten. Internet und Globalisierung haben eine neue Epoche der Redefreiheit möglich gemacht, gleichzeitig provozieren sie neue kulturelle und religiöse Konflikte. Müssen wir rassistische Kommentare auf Facebook hinnehmen? Darf Satire den Propheten Mohammed verhöhnen? 2011 hat Timothy Garton Ash eine Debatte angestoßen, seitdem diskutieren Teilnehmer aus der ganzen Welt die Frage, wie wir in Zukunft vernünftig unsere Standpunkte austauschen, wie wir das Recht auf Redefreiheit genauso wie die Würde Andersdenkender sichern können. Es ist der Stoff für sein neues Buch: Ein Standardwerk zur Redefreiheit im 21. Jahrhundert.
913 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 24, 2017
99 people are currently reading
1488 people want to read
About the author
Timothy Garton Ash
52 books278 followersTimothy Garton Ash CMG FRSA is a British historian, author and commentator. He is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University. Much of his work has been concerned with the late modern and contemporary history of Central and Eastern Europe.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
June 2, 2023
"Kezdjük ott, hogy elismerjük, nem könnyű."
Mert ugye egyfelől: a szólásszabadság a demokrácia vérkeringése. Ez biztosítja, hogy a tények és vélemények áramolhassanak, eljuttatva a létfontosságú információkat a társadalom legeldugottabb szegleteibe is. Szólásszabadság nélkül a rendszerhibák belefagynak az időbe, mert a nyílt vita, a kritikai szellem nem olvasztja fel őket.
Ugyanakkor nem csak a tények és vélemények áramolnak ilyenkor, hanem a szenny is. Mert a szavak: tettek. Kozmopoliszban élünk, felfoghatatlan közelségben egymástól, amit itt bepötyögök, azt egy perc múlva talán egy kambodzsai olvassa majd - bár ahogy a google fordítót ismerem, nem feltétlenül érti meg. Ez persze jó. Már hogy akár egy kambodzsaival is párbeszédbe elegyedhetnék. De mi van, ha arra szottyan kedvem, hogy egy mókás Mohamed-karikatúrával szórakoztassam hűséges követőimet? Mi van akkor, ha ennek következtében Szudánban megdobálnak kővel egy vétlen magyar turistát? És mi van akkor (megint egy "mi van"), ha erre reflektálva hirtelen indulatból csúnya szavakkal illetem a szudáni mentalitást, és mindez megadja az utolsó lökést egy lengyel árjának, hogy lángoló véleményemet tettekre váltsa? Összetöppedt a tér és az idő, a határok elmosódtak, a felelősség elmorzsolódott - vaktában elhajigált mondataink ismeretlen helyeken, váratlan kontextusban találhatnak el valakit.
Tény, hogy a szavak kiváló eszközök arra, hogy biztos távolságból fájdalmat okozzunk. Megalázni valakit a neten - ez nem kerül semmibe, pár ujjmozdulat csak. De ha azt tekintjük prioritásnak, hogy ne bántsunk meg senkit, az a véleménynyilvánítás halála. Ha a sértődött vétója jelöli ki a szólásszabadság határait, akkor ugyan miről beszélhetek egyáltalán? Az iszlámról nem, mert megsértődnek a mohamedánok. A magyarokról sem, mert megsértődik Kövér László. Ha a nevelőotthonokban tapasztalható rendszerszintű abúzusról van véleményem, az rosszul esik Csaba testvérnek. Ha fehér a kis hableány, az afroamerikaiak érzik kisemmizve magukat. Ha afroamerikai, a fehérek picsognak. De hát mégse lehet kék az a hableány!
És nem csak a sértődött meg a fanatikus ellensége a szólásszabadságnak. Hanem ellensége az állam, ami a politikumnak vetné alá, és ellensége a privát hatalom is, ami meg az üzleti érdekeknek. Előbbi törvényekkel béklyózná, utóbbi algoritmusokkal. Ha meg a kettő összefog, nagyon picinek érzi magát az ember.
Timothy Garton Ash mérhetetlen intellektuális tisztességgel áll neki, hogy ebben a dzsungelben valahogy ösvényt vágjon. Fontos megjegyezni: nincsenek varázsszavai. Nem tud olyan tanácsokkal ellátni minket, amelyek mindig, minden körülmények között eligazítanak. Ez az egész kötet, ez a vaskos 850 oldal ilyen értelemben talán nem több, mint a probléma puszta körvonalazása. Kísérlet arra, hogy a szólásszabadság határait körberajzoljuk - de hát a szólásszabadság meg olyan, hogy nemigen tud nyugton maradni, ezért a körvonal is girbegurba lesz. És pont ezért fontos az egyéni döntésünk - hogy egy adott kontextusban ismerjük fel a lehetőségeinket Fedezzük fel magunkban Luther és Erasmus legjobb erényeit - egyszerre legyünk bátrak és toleránsak. És tudjuk, mikor melyik erény az alkalomhoz illő. A konfliktusoktól pedig ne féljünk. Úgysem fogjuk megúszni - a kérdés, hogyan rendezzük azokat.
Akárhogy is, a szólásszabadságokkal kapcsolatos kérdések az elkövetkező évtizedek központi problémáit jelentik majd, amit ha tetszik, ha nem, együtt kell megoldanunk. És ez a könyv elég jó alapot ad ahhoz, hogy ne vakon kelljen belevágnunk.
Mert ugye egyfelől: a szólásszabadság a demokrácia vérkeringése. Ez biztosítja, hogy a tények és vélemények áramolhassanak, eljuttatva a létfontosságú információkat a társadalom legeldugottabb szegleteibe is. Szólásszabadság nélkül a rendszerhibák belefagynak az időbe, mert a nyílt vita, a kritikai szellem nem olvasztja fel őket.
Ugyanakkor nem csak a tények és vélemények áramolnak ilyenkor, hanem a szenny is. Mert a szavak: tettek. Kozmopoliszban élünk, felfoghatatlan közelségben egymástól, amit itt bepötyögök, azt egy perc múlva talán egy kambodzsai olvassa majd - bár ahogy a google fordítót ismerem, nem feltétlenül érti meg. Ez persze jó. Már hogy akár egy kambodzsaival is párbeszédbe elegyedhetnék. De mi van, ha arra szottyan kedvem, hogy egy mókás Mohamed-karikatúrával szórakoztassam hűséges követőimet? Mi van akkor, ha ennek következtében Szudánban megdobálnak kővel egy vétlen magyar turistát? És mi van akkor (megint egy "mi van"), ha erre reflektálva hirtelen indulatból csúnya szavakkal illetem a szudáni mentalitást, és mindez megadja az utolsó lökést egy lengyel árjának, hogy lángoló véleményemet tettekre váltsa? Összetöppedt a tér és az idő, a határok elmosódtak, a felelősség elmorzsolódott - vaktában elhajigált mondataink ismeretlen helyeken, váratlan kontextusban találhatnak el valakit.
Tény, hogy a szavak kiváló eszközök arra, hogy biztos távolságból fájdalmat okozzunk. Megalázni valakit a neten - ez nem kerül semmibe, pár ujjmozdulat csak. De ha azt tekintjük prioritásnak, hogy ne bántsunk meg senkit, az a véleménynyilvánítás halála. Ha a sértődött vétója jelöli ki a szólásszabadság határait, akkor ugyan miről beszélhetek egyáltalán? Az iszlámról nem, mert megsértődnek a mohamedánok. A magyarokról sem, mert megsértődik Kövér László. Ha a nevelőotthonokban tapasztalható rendszerszintű abúzusról van véleményem, az rosszul esik Csaba testvérnek. Ha fehér a kis hableány, az afroamerikaiak érzik kisemmizve magukat. Ha afroamerikai, a fehérek picsognak. De hát mégse lehet kék az a hableány!
És nem csak a sértődött meg a fanatikus ellensége a szólásszabadságnak. Hanem ellensége az állam, ami a politikumnak vetné alá, és ellensége a privát hatalom is, ami meg az üzleti érdekeknek. Előbbi törvényekkel béklyózná, utóbbi algoritmusokkal. Ha meg a kettő összefog, nagyon picinek érzi magát az ember.
Timothy Garton Ash mérhetetlen intellektuális tisztességgel áll neki, hogy ebben a dzsungelben valahogy ösvényt vágjon. Fontos megjegyezni: nincsenek varázsszavai. Nem tud olyan tanácsokkal ellátni minket, amelyek mindig, minden körülmények között eligazítanak. Ez az egész kötet, ez a vaskos 850 oldal ilyen értelemben talán nem több, mint a probléma puszta körvonalazása. Kísérlet arra, hogy a szólásszabadság határait körberajzoljuk - de hát a szólásszabadság meg olyan, hogy nemigen tud nyugton maradni, ezért a körvonal is girbegurba lesz. És pont ezért fontos az egyéni döntésünk - hogy egy adott kontextusban ismerjük fel a lehetőségeinket Fedezzük fel magunkban Luther és Erasmus legjobb erényeit - egyszerre legyünk bátrak és toleránsak. És tudjuk, mikor melyik erény az alkalomhoz illő. A konfliktusoktól pedig ne féljünk. Úgysem fogjuk megúszni - a kérdés, hogyan rendezzük azokat.
Akárhogy is, a szólásszabadságokkal kapcsolatos kérdések az elkövetkező évtizedek központi problémáit jelentik majd, amit ha tetszik, ha nem, együtt kell megoldanunk. És ez a könyv elég jó alapot ad ahhoz, hogy ne vakon kelljen belevágnunk.
August 5, 2018
"Thus a sleazy little video posted on YouTube by a convicted fraudster in Southern California had dictated the agenda of the US president, secretary of state and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff; prompted YouTube to exercise arbitrary private censorship; given the Salafists a card to play against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt; become the occasion or pretext for violent demonstrations in many countries, resulting in the death of more than 50 people; and brought a $100,000 price on the filmmaker's own head, offered for transparently political reasons by a Pakistani government minister. That in turn led a British-based Pakistani politician from the same party to demand 'a once-for-all stop for this blasphemous action' ... Welcome to cosmopolis."
Welcome, indeed.
The free speech debate has been going on for a very long time, but for most of that time the speech was limited to what a person could express verbally (often to a limited number of people), and then what a person could write and distribute to others, in physical form. With radio and television a large number of people could be reached, but only a few had access to be the speaker. With the internet, this changed. Albeit with various limitations, anyone with an internet access could suddenly share what they thought or wished to say to anyone else with an internet access. On the internet, everyone is your neighbor.
With this in mind, Garton Ash sets out to understand what free speech means, and when. When your virtual neighbor lives in a different country, perhaps even on a different continent, with its own set of laws and norms regarding free speech, how do we deal with these differences in the online world? What is legal in one country might not be legal in another. Or what might be socially acceptable to express in one country might not be in another.
Wether or not you agree with his arguments or ten principles, Garton Ash forces you to consider your stance on free speech, both in general but also in specific cases. The author is clear that his standpoint is liberal; that some laws might not need to be laws, that instead of prosecuting 'bad speech' we ought to counter it instead with more 'good speech' or 'better speech' and that we should all be legally allowed to express ourselves. It is a compelling argument he makes, although one I suspect not everyone will agree with, for various reasons. Nevertheless, it's a discussion worth having. Garton Ash is also careful to address the differences between West and other parts of the world, and that, while all perspectives might not be equal, they are worth engaging with to reach a better understanding of each others positions.
One of the best parts however, in my opinion, is in the beginning of the book, before reaching the actual principles. One obvious discussion is what counts as free speech and what isn't or shouldn't be. But Garton Ash brings up the important question: how should free speech be? As Garton states
"A right to say it does not man that it is right to say it. A right to offend does not entail a duty to offend."
In fact, Garton Ash contends that the two questions can't be separated, and to discuss one, we have to consider the other.
While Garton Ash has done a remarkable job taking into account many different aspects of free speech, I felt it fell a little short in some aspects. I would've preferred more examples on how some of the principles would work in practice. I also wished he'd taken a deeper look on disinformation and propaganda on the internet, both coming from states, corporations, other groups, and individuals. Besides that though, Free Speech is a comprehensive, at times quite funny, book on the issues that we face in a connected world with several different viewpoints on what free speech is and how it should be.
March 17, 2017
If you look for an authoritative and vivid account of a perennially polarizing topic such as freedom of speech, you will find it in "Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World" (2016) by Timothy Garton Ash. Drawing on freespeechdebate.com - a thirteen-language online project conducted at Oxford University - Timothy Garton Ash provides a lucid, detailed, and fact-based analysis of ten principles designed to serve as guidelines for free speech in the 21st century. What makes the book not just an invaluable source of knowledge but also an engrossing read is Ash's ability to bring together first-class scholarship and exquisite storytelling, which makes it easier for the reader to grasp complex ideas. He does not try to evade the weaknesses, gaps, or ambivalent aspects of his arguments, nor does he ignore existing or potential criticisms - just the contrary, he addresses them directly and methodically, describing their merits and pitfalls. In addition to the extensive theoretical part based on insights from a range of disciplines and from different historical periods, Ash offers memorable examples from countries like the USA, the UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, and India. Underlying the entire book is his conception of the present-day world as cosmopolis - a world in which time and space have been dramatically transformed by the Internet, social media like Facebook and Twitter, and smartphones, which have made us more connected and mobile but not necessarily more knowledgeable, critically thinking, and tolerant. Ash devotes significant attention to what he calls privately owned global public spheres controlled by technological giants like Google and Facebook. He discusses major problems related to privacy, transparency, and accountability which are set to take an increasingly prominent place on the agenda in the coming years.
Below I offer a few quotes which, I hope, will convince you to give this well-researched and well-thought out book the chance it deserves.
"Rather than encouraging people to be thin-skinned, what we need in a world of increasing and increasingly intimate diversity is to learn how to be a little more thick-skinned, to live and cope with difference. It has become almost a commonplace of liberal discourse that, as Ronald Dworkin put it, no one has a right not to be offended. The British-Canadian scholar Simon Barrow takes this a step further and argues that ‘we have a duty not to take offence too readily’. It seems questionable whether one can really posit a duty not to take offence – after all, my freedom of expression must include my freedom to express a sense of being offended – but it is certainly wise advice for living together well in freedom."
"The philosopher Stephen Darwall distinguishes between two kinds of respect. He calls them recognition respect and appraisal respect. In nontechnical language, the former is the unconditional respect that I owe you simply because you are a human being, endowed with the same basic humanity and inherent dignity as me. Appraisal respect, by contrast, has to be earned, whether by the persuasiveness of your argument, the beauty of your musical performance, your skill as a footballer, your dedication as a nurse, your generosity to the poor or your fortitude in adversity […] We respect the believer, in the sense of recognition respect, but not necessarily the content of the belief, in the sense of appraisal respect."
"On the internet, it is much easier to make things public and more difficult to keep things private. It follows, as the night the day, that while the greatest opportunity of cosmopolis lies in the public sharing of knowledge, opinions, images and sounds, its largest danger is the loss of privacy. This would be true even if the internet were entirely run by choirs of angels, since the surveillance possibilities afforded by today’s information and communication technologies are beyond a Stasi general’s wildest dream. Most of us voluntarily carry around with us electronic tracking devices. They are called mobile phones. Put together all the data and so-called metadata from our emails, mobile phone calls, online searches, other data-sending equipment such as your smart fridge and central heating meter, as well as tiny radio frequency indicator chips in things we use, not to mention facial recognition analysis of footage from CCTV cameras ad photos posted online, and an observer can know far more about us than does an ornithologist following a flock of electronically tagged birds. We are all tagged pigeons now."
"An extreme example of algorithmic choice could be provided by Google’s computer-driven car. An old chestnut for students of ethics is the ‘trolley problem’: you control the railway points and have to decide whether the trolley will turn left and run over one person or turn right and kill five. Now suppose this automated Google car, steered by computer, faces a similar choice. It cannot stop in time. It has to run over either that grey-haired old woman on the left or that funky young man on the right. Which way will the computer turn the steering wheel? Who would an ethical algorithm decide to kill? When we came up with this dilemma in a workshop at Stanford, one participant quipped: ‘Oh, that’s easy: the one who contributed least to Google’s advertising dollars’. Even the Google employ in our group joined in the laughter."
"We may not be surprised that Chinese, Russian or Saudi information businesses help their governments to monitor and censor the communications of their own citizens, but there are numerous examples of leading Western information companies supplying such governments, in the pursuit of profit. The roll of dishonor is long. A company called SiemensNokia sold mobile network surveillance technology to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other repressive regimes. IBM did the same for China Mobile, the biggest Chinese mobile phone operator. The Great Firewall of China (formally the Golden Shield) uses equipment supplied by the American information giant Cisco. A leaked internal Cisco presentation from 2002 noted the Chinese authorities’ wish to use their ‘golden shield’ to ‘combat Falun Gong evil religion and other hostiles’. An investigation by the Citizen Lab in Toronto traced the worldwide export by just one California-based provider, Blue Coat Systems, of sophisticated technologies that can be used for filtering, censorship and surveillance. This generated a map of ‘Planet Blue Coat’, showing all the countries where Blue Coat products were almost certainly being used for such purposes. Investigators from Privacy International managed to attend marketing exhibitions for international surveillance equipment, and the range of repressive technologies being promoted by Western companies toot their breath away.
Lenin is apocryphally reported to have said that ‘the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them’. Here, capitalists sell dictators the rope with which they hang their own citizens. All these companies have legal and PR departments which will send you long emails or letters (as SiemensNokia did to me on one occasion) explaining how the story was not exactly as reported and the products are no different from those they supply to Western networks. But while these often are ‘dual use’ technologies, deployed for less oppressive purposes in democracies, the companies know perfectly well the kind of regimes they are dealing with. Selling a sharp knife to a fisherman is not the same as selling a sharp knife to a murderer."
Below I offer a few quotes which, I hope, will convince you to give this well-researched and well-thought out book the chance it deserves.
"Rather than encouraging people to be thin-skinned, what we need in a world of increasing and increasingly intimate diversity is to learn how to be a little more thick-skinned, to live and cope with difference. It has become almost a commonplace of liberal discourse that, as Ronald Dworkin put it, no one has a right not to be offended. The British-Canadian scholar Simon Barrow takes this a step further and argues that ‘we have a duty not to take offence too readily’. It seems questionable whether one can really posit a duty not to take offence – after all, my freedom of expression must include my freedom to express a sense of being offended – but it is certainly wise advice for living together well in freedom."
"The philosopher Stephen Darwall distinguishes between two kinds of respect. He calls them recognition respect and appraisal respect. In nontechnical language, the former is the unconditional respect that I owe you simply because you are a human being, endowed with the same basic humanity and inherent dignity as me. Appraisal respect, by contrast, has to be earned, whether by the persuasiveness of your argument, the beauty of your musical performance, your skill as a footballer, your dedication as a nurse, your generosity to the poor or your fortitude in adversity […] We respect the believer, in the sense of recognition respect, but not necessarily the content of the belief, in the sense of appraisal respect."
"On the internet, it is much easier to make things public and more difficult to keep things private. It follows, as the night the day, that while the greatest opportunity of cosmopolis lies in the public sharing of knowledge, opinions, images and sounds, its largest danger is the loss of privacy. This would be true even if the internet were entirely run by choirs of angels, since the surveillance possibilities afforded by today’s information and communication technologies are beyond a Stasi general’s wildest dream. Most of us voluntarily carry around with us electronic tracking devices. They are called mobile phones. Put together all the data and so-called metadata from our emails, mobile phone calls, online searches, other data-sending equipment such as your smart fridge and central heating meter, as well as tiny radio frequency indicator chips in things we use, not to mention facial recognition analysis of footage from CCTV cameras ad photos posted online, and an observer can know far more about us than does an ornithologist following a flock of electronically tagged birds. We are all tagged pigeons now."
"An extreme example of algorithmic choice could be provided by Google’s computer-driven car. An old chestnut for students of ethics is the ‘trolley problem’: you control the railway points and have to decide whether the trolley will turn left and run over one person or turn right and kill five. Now suppose this automated Google car, steered by computer, faces a similar choice. It cannot stop in time. It has to run over either that grey-haired old woman on the left or that funky young man on the right. Which way will the computer turn the steering wheel? Who would an ethical algorithm decide to kill? When we came up with this dilemma in a workshop at Stanford, one participant quipped: ‘Oh, that’s easy: the one who contributed least to Google’s advertising dollars’. Even the Google employ in our group joined in the laughter."
"We may not be surprised that Chinese, Russian or Saudi information businesses help their governments to monitor and censor the communications of their own citizens, but there are numerous examples of leading Western information companies supplying such governments, in the pursuit of profit. The roll of dishonor is long. A company called SiemensNokia sold mobile network surveillance technology to the Islamic Republic of Iran and other repressive regimes. IBM did the same for China Mobile, the biggest Chinese mobile phone operator. The Great Firewall of China (formally the Golden Shield) uses equipment supplied by the American information giant Cisco. A leaked internal Cisco presentation from 2002 noted the Chinese authorities’ wish to use their ‘golden shield’ to ‘combat Falun Gong evil religion and other hostiles’. An investigation by the Citizen Lab in Toronto traced the worldwide export by just one California-based provider, Blue Coat Systems, of sophisticated technologies that can be used for filtering, censorship and surveillance. This generated a map of ‘Planet Blue Coat’, showing all the countries where Blue Coat products were almost certainly being used for such purposes. Investigators from Privacy International managed to attend marketing exhibitions for international surveillance equipment, and the range of repressive technologies being promoted by Western companies toot their breath away.
Lenin is apocryphally reported to have said that ‘the capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them’. Here, capitalists sell dictators the rope with which they hang their own citizens. All these companies have legal and PR departments which will send you long emails or letters (as SiemensNokia did to me on one occasion) explaining how the story was not exactly as reported and the products are no different from those they supply to Western networks. But while these often are ‘dual use’ technologies, deployed for less oppressive purposes in democracies, the companies know perfectly well the kind of regimes they are dealing with. Selling a sharp knife to a fisherman is not the same as selling a sharp knife to a murderer."
November 26, 2022
Had to read this for English this quarter — I will say I did in fact learn a lot about free speech 👌
April 21, 2017
Why are we not talking more about this book? I don't think the discussion that Prof Garton Ash stimulates here has ever been more relevant.
The fact that it is such a comprehensive, encyclopedic manifesto in these times of flux is already quite a feat. Now that we learn about new limits and grey zones to freedom, democracy and truth every day, you would think this book could have gotten dated quickly. Free Speech was published in a distant time in which Brexit and President Trump had not yet materialized, and although May 2016 was not even a year ago, it feels longer. We now have to ponder questions such as "could a candidate for U.S. President incite physical violence in a rally?" and "What to do when social media is so overrun with fake news it's affecting elections?"
But this is not a problem in this book. As it discusses free speech in issues as varied as the news, Wikipedia, religion, multiculturalism, etc this Prof Garton Ash time and again refers to this concept of "robust civility". At first, it feels like the argument for free speech is going to be easy. Having lived in Western democracies all my life, I certainly would have to look hard to find somebody that would disagree with it. But of course, as people engage in this discussion more deeply, you'd notice there are limits to this commitment. Should Facebook take down videos that deride Islam? Is it a crime when somebody publicly (if jokingly) says they'd like to punch somebody in the face or kill him or her? What exactly qualifies as hate speech and how should it be dealt with? Should leakers or whistleblowers be celebrated or jailed? Should some old-school song or poem be forbidden because it uses language we now deem insensitive? How should we tackle fake news media? Should white supremacists or people from the alt-right be heckled into silence when they speak in liberal universities?
These are all questions you'd think about when you read this book. Bottom-line is that there's only so much freedom and acceptance and solidarity we can enforce through forcible means, such as the laws. There are so many holes and they are so difficult to uphold. Better is to judge for it ourselves, and strive not for merely unconstrained, but better speech. It is not a free-for-all; there are limits.
Prof Garton Ash builds his position in ten principles, and it is curious and interesting to see such a wide matter tackled in such a structured manner. How it eventually hinges on human observation and learning may sound a bit disappoint, but it could not be any other way. It really puts the responsibility for fostering and building a culture of robust and civil defense of free speech on each one of us - something that never escapes me whenever I see what else is new in Youtube or Facebook or CNN.
The fact that it is such a comprehensive, encyclopedic manifesto in these times of flux is already quite a feat. Now that we learn about new limits and grey zones to freedom, democracy and truth every day, you would think this book could have gotten dated quickly. Free Speech was published in a distant time in which Brexit and President Trump had not yet materialized, and although May 2016 was not even a year ago, it feels longer. We now have to ponder questions such as "could a candidate for U.S. President incite physical violence in a rally?" and "What to do when social media is so overrun with fake news it's affecting elections?"
But this is not a problem in this book. As it discusses free speech in issues as varied as the news, Wikipedia, religion, multiculturalism, etc this Prof Garton Ash time and again refers to this concept of "robust civility". At first, it feels like the argument for free speech is going to be easy. Having lived in Western democracies all my life, I certainly would have to look hard to find somebody that would disagree with it. But of course, as people engage in this discussion more deeply, you'd notice there are limits to this commitment. Should Facebook take down videos that deride Islam? Is it a crime when somebody publicly (if jokingly) says they'd like to punch somebody in the face or kill him or her? What exactly qualifies as hate speech and how should it be dealt with? Should leakers or whistleblowers be celebrated or jailed? Should some old-school song or poem be forbidden because it uses language we now deem insensitive? How should we tackle fake news media? Should white supremacists or people from the alt-right be heckled into silence when they speak in liberal universities?
These are all questions you'd think about when you read this book. Bottom-line is that there's only so much freedom and acceptance and solidarity we can enforce through forcible means, such as the laws. There are so many holes and they are so difficult to uphold. Better is to judge for it ourselves, and strive not for merely unconstrained, but better speech. It is not a free-for-all; there are limits.
Prof Garton Ash builds his position in ten principles, and it is curious and interesting to see such a wide matter tackled in such a structured manner. How it eventually hinges on human observation and learning may sound a bit disappoint, but it could not be any other way. It really puts the responsibility for fostering and building a culture of robust and civil defense of free speech on each one of us - something that never escapes me whenever I see what else is new in Youtube or Facebook or CNN.
February 9, 2018
"We will never all agree, nor should we. But we must strive to create conditions in wich we agree on how we desagree."
Si un libro genera más interrogantes que el que motivó su lectura, ¿lo convierte en un buen libro?
La respuesta no la sé.
Sé que empecé este libro, en parte, para entender cómo afrontar el debate en la era digital donde cada postura, en muchas ocasiones, se presenta como inquebrantable.
No encontré una respuesta precisa a esto. En cierta medida porque, creo, que Garton Ash no intenta bajar línea en esta obra. Su propuesta principal es que el presupuesto indispensable para la libertad de expresión es pensar por uno mismo.
Para ello realiza un trabajo de investigación enciclopédico en relación a los diez tópicos de discusión en los que se centra el libro: libertad de expresión, violencia, conocimiento, periodismo, diversidad, religión, privacidad, secretos de estado, neutralidad de la red y coraje.
Aunque creo que en algunos pasajes coquetea demasiado con la paradoja de Popper, en su completitud es un libro que deconstruyó varios preconceptos que tenía, que me dio un panorama general de cómo es la situación en distintas partes del planeta y varios interrogantes más para seguir investigando.
Si un libro genera más interrogantes que el que motivó su lectura, ¿lo convierte en un buen libro?
La respuesta no la sé.
Sé que empecé este libro, en parte, para entender cómo afrontar el debate en la era digital donde cada postura, en muchas ocasiones, se presenta como inquebrantable.
No encontré una respuesta precisa a esto. En cierta medida porque, creo, que Garton Ash no intenta bajar línea en esta obra. Su propuesta principal es que el presupuesto indispensable para la libertad de expresión es pensar por uno mismo.
Para ello realiza un trabajo de investigación enciclopédico en relación a los diez tópicos de discusión en los que se centra el libro: libertad de expresión, violencia, conocimiento, periodismo, diversidad, religión, privacidad, secretos de estado, neutralidad de la red y coraje.
Aunque creo que en algunos pasajes coquetea demasiado con la paradoja de Popper, en su completitud es un libro que deconstruyó varios preconceptos que tenía, que me dio un panorama general de cómo es la situación en distintas partes del planeta y varios interrogantes más para seguir investigando.
October 31, 2016
Without doubt, a book that everyone should read. This book is a result of the freespeech project housed in Oxford to which many leading minds have contributed to. The arguments in this book are well-elucidated, and the examples will keep one going for aeons. Indeed a joy for any nerd.
Since I belong to many forums, the arguments for free speech are often presented but sometimes border on racism, hatred, misogyny and homo/transphobia. The central question this book tackles is not the older how 'free' should speech be, but rather how should free speech be. The ten principles include: freedom, violence, knowledge, journalism, diversity, religion, privacy, secrecy, icebergs (encroachment by private and public powers), courage.
An enriching read.
Since I belong to many forums, the arguments for free speech are often presented but sometimes border on racism, hatred, misogyny and homo/transphobia. The central question this book tackles is not the older how 'free' should speech be, but rather how should free speech be. The ten principles include: freedom, violence, knowledge, journalism, diversity, religion, privacy, secrecy, icebergs (encroachment by private and public powers), courage.
An enriching read.
May 30, 2017
“Podemos publicar os nossos pensamentos e fotografias em linhas, onde teoricamente poderão ser vistos por qualquer uma de milhares de milhões de outras pessoas. Nunca na história da humanidade existiu uma possibilidade para a liberdade de expressão como esta. E nunca os males da livre expressão ilimitada – ameaças de morte, imagens pedófilas, vagas de imundície e de ofensas — fluíram tão facilmente através das fronteiras.”
Porque o debate em torno da liberdade de expressão (ou a falta dela) não deve ser promovido apenas no 25 de Abril — dia em que a celebramos em Portugal —, mas manter-se vivo durante todo o ano, Timothy Garton Ash lançou “Liberdade de Expressão: Dez Princípios para um Mundo Ligado” (Temas e Debates, 2017), onde convida o leitor a uma conversa sobre o tema.
(...)
Porque deve a expressão ser livre? Quão livre deve ser a expressão? Como deveria ser a livre expressão? Todas estas questões e muitas outras cabem neste livro, no qual Timothy Garton Ash rejeita a “aldeia global”, de McLuhan, defendendo antes uma cidade global, uma Cosmópolis virtual, “esse mundo como cidade misturado e interligado” em que “agora somos todos vizinhos”.
Na opinião do autor, “deveríamos limitar a liberdade de expressão o menos possível pela lei e pela acção executiva dos governos ou das empresas, mas fazermos correspondentemente mais para desenvolver normas e práticas compartilhadas que nos permitam dar o melhor uso a essa liberdade essencial”.
Neste propósito Timothy Garton Ash apresenta dez princípios, em modo “guia do utilizador”, fortes argumentos em prol da liberdade de expressão que se complementam e formam um conjunto coerente, que o autor diz terem sido amplamente discutidos com especialistas.
Força vital, Violência, Conhecimento, Jornalismo, Diversidade, Religião, Privacidade, Confidencialidade, Icebergs e Coragem — são estes os 10 princípios que o leitor pode encontrar explanados na obra, numa linguagem fluída, em que o autor procura de facto estabelecer uma conversa com o leitor, bem fundamentada — que motiva perto de 70 páginas de notas bibliográficas — e bastante desenvolvida, ideal para quem quer explorar a fundo este tema.
(...)
Opinião completa no Deus me Livro: http://deusmelivro.com/mil-folhas/lib...
Porque o debate em torno da liberdade de expressão (ou a falta dela) não deve ser promovido apenas no 25 de Abril — dia em que a celebramos em Portugal —, mas manter-se vivo durante todo o ano, Timothy Garton Ash lançou “Liberdade de Expressão: Dez Princípios para um Mundo Ligado” (Temas e Debates, 2017), onde convida o leitor a uma conversa sobre o tema.
(...)
Porque deve a expressão ser livre? Quão livre deve ser a expressão? Como deveria ser a livre expressão? Todas estas questões e muitas outras cabem neste livro, no qual Timothy Garton Ash rejeita a “aldeia global”, de McLuhan, defendendo antes uma cidade global, uma Cosmópolis virtual, “esse mundo como cidade misturado e interligado” em que “agora somos todos vizinhos”.
Na opinião do autor, “deveríamos limitar a liberdade de expressão o menos possível pela lei e pela acção executiva dos governos ou das empresas, mas fazermos correspondentemente mais para desenvolver normas e práticas compartilhadas que nos permitam dar o melhor uso a essa liberdade essencial”.
Neste propósito Timothy Garton Ash apresenta dez princípios, em modo “guia do utilizador”, fortes argumentos em prol da liberdade de expressão que se complementam e formam um conjunto coerente, que o autor diz terem sido amplamente discutidos com especialistas.
Força vital, Violência, Conhecimento, Jornalismo, Diversidade, Religião, Privacidade, Confidencialidade, Icebergs e Coragem — são estes os 10 princípios que o leitor pode encontrar explanados na obra, numa linguagem fluída, em que o autor procura de facto estabelecer uma conversa com o leitor, bem fundamentada — que motiva perto de 70 páginas de notas bibliográficas — e bastante desenvolvida, ideal para quem quer explorar a fundo este tema.
(...)
Opinião completa no Deus me Livro: http://deusmelivro.com/mil-folhas/lib...
August 27, 2023
A good book to learn several important concepts on what is free speech in our current times... The best thing that gives you it is the yearning to question the place of your voice in the cosmopolis... It recognizes the impact of the definition that the West has given to free speech without leaving aside other points of view... And recently I started to agree more on the baseline that there's no such thing as the right to not be offended. Certainly, something I hope evolves in a direction that opens the minds of society
January 1, 2020
Internet. Nieuchronnie spędzamy w nim coraz więcej czasu na zdobywaniu informacji a czasem i wiedzy, komunikowaniu się z innymi i budowaniu relacji, czyli w konsekwencji na realizacji siebie poprzez wymianę treści różnej natury i formy. Jesteśmy wręcz jego przedłużeniem stanowiąc z nim twór, który Timothy Garton Ash nazwał 'kosmopolis'. W swojej najnowszej książce "Wolne słowo. Dziesięć zasad dla połączonego świata", ten historyk polityczny zawarł mnóstwo ważnych i wartych przemyślenia obserwacji popartych przykładami, które zmuszają do refleksji. Profesor pyta o granice wolności w Internecie, który 'skurczył czas i przestrzeń' zbliżając ludzi funkcjonujących przez wieki z wypracowanym konsensusem i napięciami głownie w lokalnych społecznościach. Powstałe 'kosmopolis' wymaga pracy nad nowym podejściem do organizacji świata. Stąd autor zastanawia się nad odpowiednim sposobem tworzenia zdrowej narracji, w której słowo musi być wolne, choć cały wywód Gartona Asha skupia się nad niezbędnymi ograniczeniami tej wolności. Są wnioski, choć książka rodzi więcej pytań, na które nie ma optymalnych odpowiedzi. Nad całością rozważań unosi się potrzeba uwzględnienia kontekstu. Bez tego szerokiego i otwartego podejścia liberalna demokracja w społeczeństwie obywatelskim straci szansę na sukces w XXI wieku.
"Wolne słowo" jest zbiorem wniosków, które autor zebrał z licznych podróży po świecie, gdzie prowadził odczyty i dyskusje z ludźmi różnych kultur, zastanawiając się nad budowaniem wolnego słowa, które musi prowadzić do wymiany myśli, twórczego fermentu, spierania się, ale tak by zachować szacunek, godność i podstawowe prawa, które większość państw formalnie respektuje. Panorama problemów, które wymagają dogłębnej analizy, dotyczy wielu jednostkowych przypadków, w których człowieka zderzony jest z machinami państwa i ponadnarodowymi korporacjami pożądającymi władzy i pieniędzy. Kłopoty są na każdym poziomie 'kosmopolis'. Dominacja technologiczna i zbudowany przez USA model sieci negują inne kraje. Wiele mówi taki fragment (str. 66):
"W 2000 roku prezydent Bill Clinton zakpił, że kneblowanie internetu w Chinach byłoby jak próba 'przybicia galaretki owocowej gwoździem do ściany'. Odpowiedź chińskich przywódców - w streszczeniu - brzmiała: 'To tylko się przypatrz'."
Tak chyba złowieszczo-żartobliwie wygląda trwająca wojna o dominację w sieci, której końca nie widać; cierpią na jej eskalacji zwykli ludzie. Garton Ash we wstępie przybliżył podstawowe zasady i regulacje podpisane przez państwa, a które da się egzekwować w sieci. Wiele pojęć, które przez wieki wypracowano, można i współcześnie stosować. Prawo do prywatności, do swobód obywatelskich, do własności czy światopoglądowej manifestacji są tak samo realne w wirtualnym świecie. Wystarczy zachować powściągliwość i 'stanowczą uprzejmość' (zwrot autora, który został w książce ciekawie zdefiniowany i wielokrotnie użyty w opisanych typowych spornych sytuacjach internetowych).
Garton Ash sporo miejsca poświęcił na analizę technik manipulacji w internecie. Dostaje się portalom społecznościowym czy służbom specjalnym, których cynizm obnażają dostępne informacyjne wycieki umożliwiające formułowanie oskarżeń o naruszenie prawa. Ukryte klauzule lojalnościowe, podsłuchy, wyłudzenia drażliwych danych, dezinformacja, naciski czy pomówienia - to codzienność sieciowa. Odpowiedzą autora na ten nie najpiękniejszy obraz 'kosmopolis' zarysowany w pierwszej części książki, jest 10 zasad opisanych w obszerniejszej części drugiej. Przedyskutowane zagadnienia to przede wszystkim: przemoc, wiedza, dziennikarstwo, różnorodność, religia, prywatność, tajność. Każdy temat autor rozpatrzył pod kątem istniejących rozwiązań prawnych (głównie USA i Unii Europejskiej), podał liczne kontrowersyjne przykłady, które pokazują bezradność teorii wobec praktyki i słabość 'obywatela-myszy' w zderzeniu z 'psami i grubymi kotami' (tak zostały nazwane państwa i ponadnarodowe korporacje). Bardzo istotne, z punktu wiedzenia naszej internetowej codzienności, są analizy autora o granicach wolności wobec inności, o stopniu akceptowalnej i potrzebnej cenzury czy ochronie własności intelektualnej. Padają ważne i kontrowersyjne słowa o naszym stosunku do twierdzeń negujących Holokaust czy o prawie do dzielenia się dowolnej treści bzdurami. Gdzie się zaczyna obraza, naruszenie godności czy niezbywalnego poziomu szacunku dla inaczej myślących? To ostatnie pojęcie, jest jednym z kluczy, które pomagają likwidować napięcia w sieci. Autor postuluje istnienie dwóch rodzajów szacunku - wynikającego z akceptacji i pochodzącego z oceny (str. 417):
"(...) pierwszy rodzaj oznacza bezwarunkowy szacunek należny z mojej strony drugiej osobie przez sam fakt, iż jest ona istotą ludzką, obdarzoną tą samą co ja istotą człowieczeństwa i przyrodzoną godnością. Z kolei szacunek wynikający z oceny to taki, na który trzeba sobie zasłużyć - siłą argumentów, pięknem wykonania utworu muzycznego, umiejętnością gry w piłkę, poświęceniem w pielęgnowaniu chorych, hojnością wobec ubogich czy hartem ducha okazywanym w trudnych chwilach."
Problem polega na tym, że się je w nieuprawniony sposób często miesza. Ta piękna zasada rozgraniczająca, która jeśli zacznie być uczciwie realizowana przez wszystkich, przeniesie chyba połowę toksyczności języka internetowego w niechlubną przeszłość. Niestety na samym polu religijnym istnieje wielowiekowa 'czapa uprzedzeń', która unosi się nad ich wyznawcami w internecie. A wystarczyłoby te zasadę odnieść wprost do światopoglądu, o czym autor piszę kilka zdań niżej:
"Szanujemy wyznawcę - w znaczeniu szacunku wynikającego z akceptacji, ale niekoniecznie treść jego przekonań - w znaczeniu szacunku wynikającego z oceny."
Gdyby zasady proponowane w "Wolnym słowie" były proste do implementacji, już byśmy je stosowali z powodzeniem. Wtedy problem byłby z głowy w tak powstałym 'nowym wspaniałym świecie'. Garton Ash nie jest naiwny. Analizuje jawnie przemocowe rozwiązania istniejące w państwach, nieprawości i bezczelność 'psów i grubych kotów'. Nie bez powodu w USA nie ma formalnie prawa do tajemnicy dziennikarskiej, a korporacje powołują się na lokalne prawo, gdy jest im wygodnie (a dostępne treści umieszczają na serwerach państw, w których akurat jest dla nich bezpieczniej w kontekście potencjalnych pozwów). Czym jest interes państwa, jak podmiot, który zaimplementował kluczowe rozwiązanie techniczne, na którym zbudowana jest sieć, ma prawo kontrolować treści? W jaki sposób prasa, która się komercjalizuje, powinna walczyć uczciwie o odbiorcę? To otwarte pytania, które wciąż trzeba zadawać i szukać tymczasowych rozwiązań.
Garton Ash napisał wspaniałą książkę, która łączy wszystkie istotne problemy współczesnej 'sieciowej globalnej wioski' w jeden zamknięty ciąg argumentacji. Autor nie poucza, choć namawia i przekonuje do własnych wniosków. "Wolne słowo" nie jest książką 'do poduszki'. Trzeba wracać, czytać ponownie, przypominać sobie postawione wcześniej tezy. Na szczęście nie jest to też formalny teoretyczny traktat. Autor zaznajomiony z sytuacją Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, potrafi zdać relację z odmienności naszej wrażliwości i drogi dochodzenia do demokracji w XX wieku. Porównuje różne systemy klasycznych demokracji, autokracji czy pozornych demokracji. Przypomina licznych dysydentów, poszukiwaczy prawdy i orędowników fundamentalnych zasad. Powołuje się na myślicieli Wschodu i Zachodu, którzy naturze ludzkiej przyglądają się od wieków. Okazuje się, że czasem wystarczy zaadaptować do wirtualnej rzeczywistości ich zasady. Wielość przykładów patologii z całego świata, różnych naruszeń zasad zdrowej interakcji w sieci czy ciekawe spostrzeżenia - to kolejny atut publikacji. Czasem jest śmiesznie, czasem strasznie. Ostatecznie po lekturze książki pozostaje optymizm, ale taki refleksyjny i wyczulony na próby manipulacji.
Gorąco zachęcam do namysłu podczas lektury.
ŚWIETNA - 9/10
"Wolne słowo" jest zbiorem wniosków, które autor zebrał z licznych podróży po świecie, gdzie prowadził odczyty i dyskusje z ludźmi różnych kultur, zastanawiając się nad budowaniem wolnego słowa, które musi prowadzić do wymiany myśli, twórczego fermentu, spierania się, ale tak by zachować szacunek, godność i podstawowe prawa, które większość państw formalnie respektuje. Panorama problemów, które wymagają dogłębnej analizy, dotyczy wielu jednostkowych przypadków, w których człowieka zderzony jest z machinami państwa i ponadnarodowymi korporacjami pożądającymi władzy i pieniędzy. Kłopoty są na każdym poziomie 'kosmopolis'. Dominacja technologiczna i zbudowany przez USA model sieci negują inne kraje. Wiele mówi taki fragment (str. 66):
"W 2000 roku prezydent Bill Clinton zakpił, że kneblowanie internetu w Chinach byłoby jak próba 'przybicia galaretki owocowej gwoździem do ściany'. Odpowiedź chińskich przywódców - w streszczeniu - brzmiała: 'To tylko się przypatrz'."
Tak chyba złowieszczo-żartobliwie wygląda trwająca wojna o dominację w sieci, której końca nie widać; cierpią na jej eskalacji zwykli ludzie. Garton Ash we wstępie przybliżył podstawowe zasady i regulacje podpisane przez państwa, a które da się egzekwować w sieci. Wiele pojęć, które przez wieki wypracowano, można i współcześnie stosować. Prawo do prywatności, do swobód obywatelskich, do własności czy światopoglądowej manifestacji są tak samo realne w wirtualnym świecie. Wystarczy zachować powściągliwość i 'stanowczą uprzejmość' (zwrot autora, który został w książce ciekawie zdefiniowany i wielokrotnie użyty w opisanych typowych spornych sytuacjach internetowych).
Garton Ash sporo miejsca poświęcił na analizę technik manipulacji w internecie. Dostaje się portalom społecznościowym czy służbom specjalnym, których cynizm obnażają dostępne informacyjne wycieki umożliwiające formułowanie oskarżeń o naruszenie prawa. Ukryte klauzule lojalnościowe, podsłuchy, wyłudzenia drażliwych danych, dezinformacja, naciski czy pomówienia - to codzienność sieciowa. Odpowiedzą autora na ten nie najpiękniejszy obraz 'kosmopolis' zarysowany w pierwszej części książki, jest 10 zasad opisanych w obszerniejszej części drugiej. Przedyskutowane zagadnienia to przede wszystkim: przemoc, wiedza, dziennikarstwo, różnorodność, religia, prywatność, tajność. Każdy temat autor rozpatrzył pod kątem istniejących rozwiązań prawnych (głównie USA i Unii Europejskiej), podał liczne kontrowersyjne przykłady, które pokazują bezradność teorii wobec praktyki i słabość 'obywatela-myszy' w zderzeniu z 'psami i grubymi kotami' (tak zostały nazwane państwa i ponadnarodowe korporacje). Bardzo istotne, z punktu wiedzenia naszej internetowej codzienności, są analizy autora o granicach wolności wobec inności, o stopniu akceptowalnej i potrzebnej cenzury czy ochronie własności intelektualnej. Padają ważne i kontrowersyjne słowa o naszym stosunku do twierdzeń negujących Holokaust czy o prawie do dzielenia się dowolnej treści bzdurami. Gdzie się zaczyna obraza, naruszenie godności czy niezbywalnego poziomu szacunku dla inaczej myślących? To ostatnie pojęcie, jest jednym z kluczy, które pomagają likwidować napięcia w sieci. Autor postuluje istnienie dwóch rodzajów szacunku - wynikającego z akceptacji i pochodzącego z oceny (str. 417):
"(...) pierwszy rodzaj oznacza bezwarunkowy szacunek należny z mojej strony drugiej osobie przez sam fakt, iż jest ona istotą ludzką, obdarzoną tą samą co ja istotą człowieczeństwa i przyrodzoną godnością. Z kolei szacunek wynikający z oceny to taki, na który trzeba sobie zasłużyć - siłą argumentów, pięknem wykonania utworu muzycznego, umiejętnością gry w piłkę, poświęceniem w pielęgnowaniu chorych, hojnością wobec ubogich czy hartem ducha okazywanym w trudnych chwilach."
Problem polega na tym, że się je w nieuprawniony sposób często miesza. Ta piękna zasada rozgraniczająca, która jeśli zacznie być uczciwie realizowana przez wszystkich, przeniesie chyba połowę toksyczności języka internetowego w niechlubną przeszłość. Niestety na samym polu religijnym istnieje wielowiekowa 'czapa uprzedzeń', która unosi się nad ich wyznawcami w internecie. A wystarczyłoby te zasadę odnieść wprost do światopoglądu, o czym autor piszę kilka zdań niżej:
"Szanujemy wyznawcę - w znaczeniu szacunku wynikającego z akceptacji, ale niekoniecznie treść jego przekonań - w znaczeniu szacunku wynikającego z oceny."
Gdyby zasady proponowane w "Wolnym słowie" były proste do implementacji, już byśmy je stosowali z powodzeniem. Wtedy problem byłby z głowy w tak powstałym 'nowym wspaniałym świecie'. Garton Ash nie jest naiwny. Analizuje jawnie przemocowe rozwiązania istniejące w państwach, nieprawości i bezczelność 'psów i grubych kotów'. Nie bez powodu w USA nie ma formalnie prawa do tajemnicy dziennikarskiej, a korporacje powołują się na lokalne prawo, gdy jest im wygodnie (a dostępne treści umieszczają na serwerach państw, w których akurat jest dla nich bezpieczniej w kontekście potencjalnych pozwów). Czym jest interes państwa, jak podmiot, który zaimplementował kluczowe rozwiązanie techniczne, na którym zbudowana jest sieć, ma prawo kontrolować treści? W jaki sposób prasa, która się komercjalizuje, powinna walczyć uczciwie o odbiorcę? To otwarte pytania, które wciąż trzeba zadawać i szukać tymczasowych rozwiązań.
Garton Ash napisał wspaniałą książkę, która łączy wszystkie istotne problemy współczesnej 'sieciowej globalnej wioski' w jeden zamknięty ciąg argumentacji. Autor nie poucza, choć namawia i przekonuje do własnych wniosków. "Wolne słowo" nie jest książką 'do poduszki'. Trzeba wracać, czytać ponownie, przypominać sobie postawione wcześniej tezy. Na szczęście nie jest to też formalny teoretyczny traktat. Autor zaznajomiony z sytuacją Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej, potrafi zdać relację z odmienności naszej wrażliwości i drogi dochodzenia do demokracji w XX wieku. Porównuje różne systemy klasycznych demokracji, autokracji czy pozornych demokracji. Przypomina licznych dysydentów, poszukiwaczy prawdy i orędowników fundamentalnych zasad. Powołuje się na myślicieli Wschodu i Zachodu, którzy naturze ludzkiej przyglądają się od wieków. Okazuje się, że czasem wystarczy zaadaptować do wirtualnej rzeczywistości ich zasady. Wielość przykładów patologii z całego świata, różnych naruszeń zasad zdrowej interakcji w sieci czy ciekawe spostrzeżenia - to kolejny atut publikacji. Czasem jest śmiesznie, czasem strasznie. Ostatecznie po lekturze książki pozostaje optymizm, ale taki refleksyjny i wyczulony na próby manipulacji.
Gorąco zachęcam do namysłu podczas lektury.
ŚWIETNA - 9/10
February 23, 2021
I’ll give this 5 stars for good intentions (especially for dealing with free speech in the internet era), 4 for coverage (especially for a comprehensive reading of official documents from the UN etc which are just deadening), 3 for political analysis and 2 for programmatic remedies. The problem throughout is a kind of wishful thinking that the opposition to free speech isn’t deadly and that good will and reasonableness by well meaning people will set things right. Well meaning reasonable people will find a lot to agree with here. Tyrants will reach for their guns and for their cyber hacking operations that make the propaganda efforts of Joseph Goebbels look puny. It’s dispiriting that the only practical remedies proposed are the tired and ineffectual appeals to “conversations” and dialogue. As they say, better to light a candle but. . .
August 15, 2017
A monumental slab of liberal agonising about the limits of possibilities of free speech in the digitally-connected world. Part I sets out a vision of what needs to be said, and then the longer Part II tries to cover it all. Although perfectly readable I honestly can't remember anything he says, it just seems to be the bleedin' obvious that always comes up when this topic is debated, plus a load of topical diversions about internet things. Just after I finished this the Charlottesville March blew up, giving a more concrete example for consideration, including all the digital fallout from fake news, rumours, accusations, false identifcations, and so on. Not sure what Timothy would say, but I can hear his hands wringing.
May 5, 2020
Disappointing.
October 7, 2019
Back in the heady days of the early 1990s, technologists predicted that the internet would herald a new era of free speech. The boundaryless nature of what they were creating would free humankind from the shackles of expression oppression. Or so the story went. For a time, the idealists were right. Then corporations and governments learned how to harness the technology differently. The great Chinese Firewall, internet sovereignty, personal information marketplaces, cyberbullying, hacking, and intelligence monitoring changed all that. Free speech simultaneously exploded and got massively curtailed, all in one fell swoop. In Timothy Garton Ash’s Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World, we explore some of the stickiest quandaries of the modern era. Has the internet become a detriment to freedom? Has it merely enabled governments to monitor the population more closely? Have we encountered the death of privacy? Is free speech free anymore?
Timothy Garton Ash is the preeminent author, historian, and political scholar of the modern age on this topic. A weekly contributor to the Guardian since 2004 and author of ten books covering liberty and free speech, he is a staunch defender of the liberal world order. His latest book appears to be the capstone work to his long career and is a work that deserves rumination as we contemplate history’s way forward.
In Free Speech, Ash charts his way in a post-Gutenberg world into a construct that he calls Cosmopolis. The concept that we are no longer separate cities or countries but one giant, virtual city. In this grand Cosmopolis, then we can debate why speech must be free and what are the limits to such a right. Ash establishes that four central pillars establish why speech must be free:
The realization of self
The ability to find the truth
Providing good governance for the populous
To promote diversity.
Without these core principles, society will fail to progress, and its citizens will be unfulfilled, he asserts.
Having established the history and ideals – Ash closes Part I and embarks on Part II of the book. Here he gets into his ten principles.
‘We—all human beings—must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.’
‘We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.’
‘We allow no taboos against and seize every chance for the spread of knowledge.’
‘We require uncensored, diverse, trustworthy media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.’
‘We express ourselves openly and with robust civility about all kinds of human difference.’
‘We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.’
‘We must be able to protect our privacy and to counter slurs on our reputations, but not prevent scrutiny that is in the public interest.’
‘We must be empowered to challenge all limits to freedom of information justified on such grounds as national security.’
‘We defend the internet and other systems of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.’
‘We decide for ourselves and face the consequences.’
Ash goes into detail on why each principle is vital to a free society — citing various events in the news as illustration. He covers apparent topics such as the Snowden disclosures and WikiLeaks and obscure examples such as Usama Hasan, who received death threats for discussing evolution at a mosque.
In the end, Ash’s arguments are sound, for those believing in the liberal world order and the first amendment. Of course, not all believe that the liberal world order, as established post-World War II, is correct. Indeed in The Jungle Grows Back, published two years after this work, Robert Kagan argues that the liberal world order is contrary to the natural state of the world. He further contends the only reason we have come to accept it as the natural evolution of ideas is America’s pre-dominance for the last 70 years.
Even so, Ash’s assertions on the need to fight for and obtain free speech for all is right and just based on the four pillars. I might not even be able to publish this blog, were it not so. Yet it is complicated. Do I, as a writer, have the right to spout inflammatory and hateful rhetoric that may incite others to violence? Conversely, we have also seen the assassin’s veto, where the threat of violence has squelched opinions.
We have also seen the politically correct movements shut down any discourse that may be offensive. As offensive as some ideas may be if we curtail offensive conversation, who gets to decide what’s offensive? How is this dissimilar from the State determining that any discussion of Tibetan Buddhist beliefs is offensive?
In this day and age of “fake news” and politicization of civil discourse and authoritarian censorship, we owe it to ourselves to revisit this topic. You may put this book down more discouraged about our present state, but you will be wiser.
Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World by Timothy Garton Ash, Yale University Press, May 24th, 2016, 504 pages
monkeyfist.life
Timothy Garton Ash is the preeminent author, historian, and political scholar of the modern age on this topic. A weekly contributor to the Guardian since 2004 and author of ten books covering liberty and free speech, he is a staunch defender of the liberal world order. His latest book appears to be the capstone work to his long career and is a work that deserves rumination as we contemplate history’s way forward.
In Free Speech, Ash charts his way in a post-Gutenberg world into a construct that he calls Cosmopolis. The concept that we are no longer separate cities or countries but one giant, virtual city. In this grand Cosmopolis, then we can debate why speech must be free and what are the limits to such a right. Ash establishes that four central pillars establish why speech must be free:
The realization of self
The ability to find the truth
Providing good governance for the populous
To promote diversity.
Without these core principles, society will fail to progress, and its citizens will be unfulfilled, he asserts.
Having established the history and ideals – Ash closes Part I and embarks on Part II of the book. Here he gets into his ten principles.
‘We—all human beings—must be free and able to express ourselves, and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers.’
‘We neither make threats of violence nor accept violent intimidation.’
‘We allow no taboos against and seize every chance for the spread of knowledge.’
‘We require uncensored, diverse, trustworthy media so we can make well-informed decisions and participate fully in political life.’
‘We express ourselves openly and with robust civility about all kinds of human difference.’
‘We respect the believer but not necessarily the content of the belief.’
‘We must be able to protect our privacy and to counter slurs on our reputations, but not prevent scrutiny that is in the public interest.’
‘We must be empowered to challenge all limits to freedom of information justified on such grounds as national security.’
‘We defend the internet and other systems of communication against illegitimate encroachments by both public and private powers.’
‘We decide for ourselves and face the consequences.’
Ash goes into detail on why each principle is vital to a free society — citing various events in the news as illustration. He covers apparent topics such as the Snowden disclosures and WikiLeaks and obscure examples such as Usama Hasan, who received death threats for discussing evolution at a mosque.
In the end, Ash’s arguments are sound, for those believing in the liberal world order and the first amendment. Of course, not all believe that the liberal world order, as established post-World War II, is correct. Indeed in The Jungle Grows Back, published two years after this work, Robert Kagan argues that the liberal world order is contrary to the natural state of the world. He further contends the only reason we have come to accept it as the natural evolution of ideas is America’s pre-dominance for the last 70 years.
Even so, Ash’s assertions on the need to fight for and obtain free speech for all is right and just based on the four pillars. I might not even be able to publish this blog, were it not so. Yet it is complicated. Do I, as a writer, have the right to spout inflammatory and hateful rhetoric that may incite others to violence? Conversely, we have also seen the assassin’s veto, where the threat of violence has squelched opinions.
We have also seen the politically correct movements shut down any discourse that may be offensive. As offensive as some ideas may be if we curtail offensive conversation, who gets to decide what’s offensive? How is this dissimilar from the State determining that any discussion of Tibetan Buddhist beliefs is offensive?
In this day and age of “fake news” and politicization of civil discourse and authoritarian censorship, we owe it to ourselves to revisit this topic. You may put this book down more discouraged about our present state, but you will be wiser.
Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World by Timothy Garton Ash, Yale University Press, May 24th, 2016, 504 pages
monkeyfist.life
December 8, 2024
Una ricognizione totale delle condizioni, delle implicazioni e soprattutto delle complicazioni che gravitano attorno al concetto e alla pratica della libertà di parola. Attraversando società, legislazioni e culture, Timothy Garton Ash mette sul tavolo una mole di questioni aperte che, se da un lato stimolano un'altrettanto vasta schiera di riflessioni, dall'altro forniscono con la loro stessa esistenza un caposaldo stabile da cui partire, ossia che l'idea di limitare per legge la libertà di espressione allo scopo di proteggere le minoranze è completamente insensata. "Se mettessimo assieme tutti i tabú esistenti al mondo, non rimarrebbe piú molto di cui parlare" è una verità talmente evidente a chiunque abbia considerato anche solo superficialmente l'estrema varietà e complessità delle società umane che si rimane ancora piú esterrefatti di fronte alla montante marea woke che, al pari dei peggiori estremismi, minaccia di fare piazza pulita, a suon di proibizioni, del pensiero critico e del confronto aperto.
Attraverso questi dieci principi, l'autore mira a costruire uno sguardo su un mondo che potrebbe essere, un mondo in cui tutte le culture e le religioni possano convivere armoniosamente senza sentire il bisogno di soffocarsi l'una con l'altra, senza che ciascuno percepisca come offensivo ciò che non si conforma alla propria sensibilità.
Come per la pace, la libertà di parola non è una meta o uno stato da raggiungere una volta per tutte, ma un esercizio costante, fatto di apertura mentale, capacità comunicativa e tolleranza del diverso. Mettere in atto una legislazione proibizionista è molto piú semplice che non impegnarsi a costruire una società tollerante, capace di dar voce a tutte le sensibilità senza che questo scateni tensioni insostenibili.
È chiaro che è un obiettivo ambizioso, ma se pensiamo che sia utopico allora siamo condannati in partenza e finiremo in un modo o nell'altro per sopraffarci a vicenda.
L'esplosione demografica, la pressione migratoria dei paesi piú poveri verso l'occidente ricco, la capillarità e la rapidità con cui si diffondono le informazioni ci rendono sempre piú vicini gli uni agli altri, mettendoci di fronte ad atteggiamenti e opinioni anche profondamente diverse dalle nostre: bene, per essere all'altezza di questa sfida epocale dobbiamo allenarci agestire una maggiore libertà di parola, anziché chiuderci dentro una (fragile) fortezza di proibizioni.
Con un linguaggio preciso ma accessibile e uno stile coinvolgente, l'autore ci esorta in tutti i modi a fare nostra questa disposizione mentale all'apertura al dialogo. Per questa ragione questo saggio è oggi piú che mai una lettura necessaria, un testo irrinunciabile. È un'opera provvisoria, un lavoro in divenire che non fa mistero delle difficoltà che una sempre piú diffusa libertà di parola comporta, ma si muove nella direzione giusta e apre alla speranza che, se solo lo volessimo, potremmo vivere davvero tutti insieme come un unico popolo.
Attraverso questi dieci principi, l'autore mira a costruire uno sguardo su un mondo che potrebbe essere, un mondo in cui tutte le culture e le religioni possano convivere armoniosamente senza sentire il bisogno di soffocarsi l'una con l'altra, senza che ciascuno percepisca come offensivo ciò che non si conforma alla propria sensibilità.
Come per la pace, la libertà di parola non è una meta o uno stato da raggiungere una volta per tutte, ma un esercizio costante, fatto di apertura mentale, capacità comunicativa e tolleranza del diverso. Mettere in atto una legislazione proibizionista è molto piú semplice che non impegnarsi a costruire una società tollerante, capace di dar voce a tutte le sensibilità senza che questo scateni tensioni insostenibili.
È chiaro che è un obiettivo ambizioso, ma se pensiamo che sia utopico allora siamo condannati in partenza e finiremo in un modo o nell'altro per sopraffarci a vicenda.
L'esplosione demografica, la pressione migratoria dei paesi piú poveri verso l'occidente ricco, la capillarità e la rapidità con cui si diffondono le informazioni ci rendono sempre piú vicini gli uni agli altri, mettendoci di fronte ad atteggiamenti e opinioni anche profondamente diverse dalle nostre: bene, per essere all'altezza di questa sfida epocale dobbiamo allenarci agestire una maggiore libertà di parola, anziché chiuderci dentro una (fragile) fortezza di proibizioni.
Con un linguaggio preciso ma accessibile e uno stile coinvolgente, l'autore ci esorta in tutti i modi a fare nostra questa disposizione mentale all'apertura al dialogo. Per questa ragione questo saggio è oggi piú che mai una lettura necessaria, un testo irrinunciabile. È un'opera provvisoria, un lavoro in divenire che non fa mistero delle difficoltà che una sempre piú diffusa libertà di parola comporta, ma si muove nella direzione giusta e apre alla speranza che, se solo lo volessimo, potremmo vivere davvero tutti insieme come un unico popolo.
December 8, 2024
When Nine Principles merely feels stupid
..............
Waterstones
“Disappointing”
I read Timothy Garton Ash's column in The Guardian regularly as well as read the articles and contributions on the Free Speech Debate website, so I was looking forward to reading this book when it was published in paperback. The question of Free Speech is not only topical but contentious, for example the right to offend and the right to criticise religious beliefs.
But when I read the book I felt all Prof. Ash was doing was stating that we should have certain rights without bothering to explain or give any background as to why we should have those rights.
On the contentious issues I did not find the book very persuasive at all, which is why I have given the book three stars and regard it as disappointing.
Gerald
..............
Publishers Weekly
Almost farcically thorough, the book doesn't even pose the question "Why should speech be free?" until it has thoroughly laid the historical groundwork.
...........
American Association of University Professors
There is, to be sure, at moments an almost Pollyannaish quality to Ash’s liberalism, but he is no naive utopian.
He concludes, “We need realistic idealism and idealistic realism..... We will never all agree, nor should we. But we must strive to create conditions in which we agree on how to disagree. At scale, in cosmopolis, that work has barely begun.”
...........
Yeah that's the ticket, Ten Chapters
Lifeblood - Violence - Knowledge
Diversity - Religion
Privacy - Secrecy
Icebergs - Courage
............
August 14, 2017
Well done and thoughtful work that exhaustively explores the realistic standards we can and should demand from leaders and internet search engines, social media purveyors, and ourselves in conducting a lively, civil debate where differences of opinion can be openly shared. He brings up interesting examples from actual case law and real world situations where limits were pushed and defined. Many difficult and complex issues of how to acknowledge and respect, religious differences in particular where there is currently so much volatility, when perceived disrespect of Islam seems currently to be more likely to result in violence than with other faiths. Though he is quick to acknowledge this has not always been the case and in other eras Christians were wielding threat of violence for sacreligious acts and words. He gives other examples as well. The difference now is something done in one location can now instantly be transmitted and result in upheaval elsewhere. How to balance perceived national security threats with rights to free speech and expression and privacy and how they all interweave was expertly laid out in all its complexity. Despite all the difficulties, he is in the end coming with a hopeful and empowering message about the rights we all share in our common humanity to freely debate and learn with unfettered access to knowledge and opinions. The struggle will not always be easy but certainly worth pursuing.
August 1, 2019
A good book, but I'm not too certain of who its intended audience is. It is a very thorough examination of free speech issues in the context of a diverse, connected world - enough so that I recommended it to my girlfriend to use as a primary source for an assignment she is currently working on for her Master's Degree. It covers all aspects: international legal frameworks, classical arguments for free speech, internet regulation, privacy, security, and long discussions of free speech in the context of diversity and religion. But unless one had an academic interest in reading it I can't help but feel like it would almost be too dense to be of interest for the general reader.
By contrast, it doesn't really break any new ground for the reader with a pre-existing interest in the subject. With the possible exception of some of the internet stuff I suspect most people reading a book about free speech will already have a robust understanding of where the legal boundaries ought to be drawn, and have various contemporary examples in mind to illustrate their views. Ash's analysis rarely surprises, however, and aside from the shouting down of speakers at universities his treatment of the really gray areas is lacking. For the Colin Kaepernicks and Jordan Petersons of the world - who have expressed controversial but clearly legal views that have severely compromised their careers - Ash has little more to offer than an encouragement to be courageous. The thoughtful reader, who was hoping to gain clarity in their views, is let down.
Even Ash himself seems uncertain of whom it is he is writing for. His principles are oddly vague ("we express ourselves openly and with robust civility about all kinds of human difference"); I'm still not entirely certain who the "we" is that he refers to in each. Are they principles for a reformed legal framework? General guidelines for personal conduct? Je ne sais pas. Further, in the early introductory chapters Ash introduces several acronyms as shorthand, turning relatively simply concepts into intimidating jargon. But then he hardly uses them in the rest of the book, giving only a couple of mentions to one and no more than a handful to another. On top of this, in each case he spells out each of the terms of the acronym because it had been so long since the reader last encountered them. Though it is a relatively minor point, it was an editorial blunder and one which illustrates well the broader weakness of the book.
Still, I gave the book a positive rating for a reason. It does broadly achieve its intended purpose of outlining contemporary concerns with and arguments for freedom of speech. Ash writes engagingly and with a sense of humour. Even if his analysis rarely surprises, there is a lot of value in the comprehensive nature of his approach which takes the reader from an elementary understanding of the topic to a full working knowledge. My big concern, as outlined above, is who exactly is going to be willing to pay the price of admission. I enjoyed it well enough, but cannot give it a strong recommendation except to the paper-writer who wants a thorough but lively treatment of the topic in the context of the 21st century.
3.5/5 stars
By contrast, it doesn't really break any new ground for the reader with a pre-existing interest in the subject. With the possible exception of some of the internet stuff I suspect most people reading a book about free speech will already have a robust understanding of where the legal boundaries ought to be drawn, and have various contemporary examples in mind to illustrate their views. Ash's analysis rarely surprises, however, and aside from the shouting down of speakers at universities his treatment of the really gray areas is lacking. For the Colin Kaepernicks and Jordan Petersons of the world - who have expressed controversial but clearly legal views that have severely compromised their careers - Ash has little more to offer than an encouragement to be courageous. The thoughtful reader, who was hoping to gain clarity in their views, is let down.
Even Ash himself seems uncertain of whom it is he is writing for. His principles are oddly vague ("we express ourselves openly and with robust civility about all kinds of human difference"); I'm still not entirely certain who the "we" is that he refers to in each. Are they principles for a reformed legal framework? General guidelines for personal conduct? Je ne sais pas. Further, in the early introductory chapters Ash introduces several acronyms as shorthand, turning relatively simply concepts into intimidating jargon. But then he hardly uses them in the rest of the book, giving only a couple of mentions to one and no more than a handful to another. On top of this, in each case he spells out each of the terms of the acronym because it had been so long since the reader last encountered them. Though it is a relatively minor point, it was an editorial blunder and one which illustrates well the broader weakness of the book.
Still, I gave the book a positive rating for a reason. It does broadly achieve its intended purpose of outlining contemporary concerns with and arguments for freedom of speech. Ash writes engagingly and with a sense of humour. Even if his analysis rarely surprises, there is a lot of value in the comprehensive nature of his approach which takes the reader from an elementary understanding of the topic to a full working knowledge. My big concern, as outlined above, is who exactly is going to be willing to pay the price of admission. I enjoyed it well enough, but cannot give it a strong recommendation except to the paper-writer who wants a thorough but lively treatment of the topic in the context of the 21st century.
3.5/5 stars
September 25, 2025
This isn’t a hot-take book. Free Speech is dense and reasoned, and while it does wander into the academic weeds now and then, it always manages to climb back into focus. Timothy Garton Ash, historian and political commentator, wrote Free Speech as both a field report and manifesto. The goal was to explore what “free speech” means in an age of internet platforms, religious tensions, state surveillance, and global ideological drift - and to propose ten guiding principles that could work across cultures, not just in Western liberal democracies. He doesn’t ask Can we say that? but rather Should we - and why not? A foundational read for anyone serious about speech in a connected, combustive world. Not a page-turner, but a thought-turner.
November 25, 2017
This book is incredibly timely, well-researched (almost to a fault) and well written. At times I lost energy with all the references to this and that and the repetition of some of the main themes which seemed obvious. However, getting to the end, I became truly frightened when confronted with the very important issues involved, the dangers to free speech and, especially, to the lack thereof with the current danger of losing net neutrality. They are out there, lurking, and it's hard to believe enough people have enough influence to stop the current speed with which the ever smaller number of powerful players, those public but mostly private are taking over.
June 28, 2023
Clearly, Timothy Garton Ash worked long and hard on this book: a great deal of thought and research went into this making this book enjoyable and thought-provoking to read. The arguments are well made and his examples are well chosen. Many interesting discussions of topics like hate speech, privacy, Islam, free speech and violence, respectful disagreement, genocide criminalization, and more. Good use of diagrams, maps, and charts helps keep the information accessible and the book uses cases from around the world to highlight the importance and challenge of allowing free speech to thrive globally and be used purposively.
July 11, 2018
This book is very well written, impeccably researched and a fun read...very antidotal. I dropped it one star because it could use some editing. Basically, at times, he seems to beat a dead horse. Also, the raw amount of information: names, places, events named in the book at times becomes overwhelming (another reason for some editing.) Good read and it’s already played a role in some policy debates.
July 8, 2017
Definitely enjoyed this book! A lot of excellent points, anecdotes and insight into what free speech could be/should be, and how policies surrounding free speech effect our day-to-day lives. I'd absolutely recommend, especially to anyone in the communications/journalism field, or with an interest in politics.
March 26, 2018
As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, as artificial boundaries that define countries, cultures, religions, and mores fade, as we struggle with the conflicts of free speech and right speech, this book dives deep into the history, the concepts, and practical realities of how we might balance tolerance, conflict, respect and freedom.
October 24, 2017
"Defending free speech takes more than standing up for science and sound argument.It takes standing up as well for the right to say things that are wrong, false , hateful , stupid or reckless. It is easy to admire what we believe in . To defend free speech , you have to allow for bad speech."
October 1, 2018
Os princípios que esse livro apresenta são muito importantes considerando o imenso poder das grandes empresas de tecnologia e as tendências que essas empresas possuem.
O livro é simples, ponderado e divertido.
O livro é simples, ponderado e divertido.
July 2, 2019
I found this book a bit too long, dry, and scholarly to be a truly entertaining read, other than a few stretches, but the flip side is that it's a a strong, thorough, humane piece of scholarship - a valuable resource. I'm a writer working on a book about echo chambers and graduated with my master's degree from UC Berkeley in 2017, so I've been deep into the evolving and sometimes violent free speech battles for years. From the "hate speech" dilemma to journalism's implosion to the changing views on the US 1st Amendment to the very good reasons why Brexiteers see the EU eroding their freedom.... If you want an up-to-date deep dive on free speech law, history, and philosophy, take a good look at Timothy Garton Ash's "Free Speech."
September 2, 2020
La libertà di parola è un diritto fondamentale che non tutti possono esperire.
Nemmeno nell'Occidente liberale questo diritto è così applicato come si pensa, soprattutto nell'epoca digitale.
Un testo lucido e estremamente interessante.
Nemmeno nell'Occidente liberale questo diritto è così applicato come si pensa, soprattutto nell'epoca digitale.
Un testo lucido e estremamente interessante.
June 8, 2021
Really fascinating and well written argument for a libertarian version of free speech, particularly online. Sometimes the author's seemingly conservative leanings got in the way of the full argument but overall really great stuff and will be using in my thesis!
July 19, 2022
A fascinating book that seeks to carve out a space for the honest and decent human being in a world fraught with obstacles to free speech that makes a difference. Thoroughly researched, with a treasure trove of references for further reading. Highly recommended.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews