Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All

by Suzanne Nossel

A must read. --Margaret Atwood

A vital, necessary playbook for navigating and defending free speech today by the CEO of PEN America, Dare To Speak provides a pathway for promoting free expression while also cultivating a more inclusive public culture.

Online trolls and fascist chat groups. Controversies over campus lectures. Cancel culture versus censorship. The daily hazards and debates surrounding free speech dominate headlines and fuel social media storms. In an era where one tweet can launch--or end--your career, and where free speech is often invoked as a principle but rarely understood, learning to maneuver the fast-changing, treacherous landscape of public discourse has never been more urgent.

In Dare To Speak, Suzanne Nossel, a leading voice in support of free expression, delivers a vital, necessary guide to maintaining democratic debate that is open, free-wheeling but at the same time respectful of the rich diversity of backgrounds and opinions in a changing country. Centered on practical principles, Nossel's primer equips readers with the tools needed to speak one's mind in today's diverse, digitized, and highly-divided society without resorting to curbs on free expression.

At a time when free speech is often pitted against other progressive axioms--namely diversity and equality--Dare To Speak presents a clear-eyed argument that the drive to create a more inclusive society need not, and must not, compromise robust protections for free speech. Nossel provides concrete guidance on how to reconcile these two sets of core values within universities, on social media, and in daily life. She advises readers how to:

Use language conscientiously without self-censoring ideas;Defend the right to express unpopular views;And protest without silencing speech.Nossel warns against the increasingly fashionable embrace of expanded government and corporate controls over speech, warning that such strictures can reinforce the marginalization of lesser-heard voices. She argues that creating an open market of ideas demands aggressive steps to remedy exclusion and ensure equal participation.

Replete with insightful arguments, colorful examples, and salient advice, Dare To Speak brings much-needed clarity and guidance to this pressing--and often misunderstood--debate.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Sociology, Law, Social Issues, Communication

1 pages, Audio CD

First published May 5, 2020

Reviews

[Dr. Appu Sasidharan (Dasfill) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every human being living in their sojourn in this world deserves the right to freely express their thoughts and ideas without fear of retribution and censorship. We have been seeing people getting crucified for saying their feelings all around the world right from prehistoric times.

We are all familiar with what happened to Galileo Galilei in 1633 when he showed the courage to tell that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth. His punishment was a lifetime of house arrest. What would have happened to Galileo if he had revealed his finding in this century? Maybe he would have been exonerated. But can we clearly say that we respect the freedom of speech? The answer will be, unfortunately, no.

The recent physical attack on writers like Salman Rushdie, Hugo Bettauer, Giordano Bruno, Anna Politkovskaya, T.J. Joseph, and verbal attacks on writers like Perumal Murugan and S. Hareesh all tell us that we have not progressed that much from the days of Galileo.

The author is the CEO of PEN America which is doing a commendable job in protecting open expression in the United States.

Twelve key ideas from this book
1) How practical is free speech in this 21st century?
Our world in this 21st century is one of the most diverse, digitized, and divided cultures. The author discusses the practicality of free speech in this century and the measures we should follow to protect free speech.

"Talking about free speech is hard because, inevitably, the speech that gives rise to such conversations is unpopular, offensive, dangerous, or otherwise contestable. In an era when insults can go viral and arguments can be recorded or screenshot to last in perpetuity, the prospect of mixing it up on a contentious issue can be uninviting. When free speech issues arise, it may be easier to follow the crowd, nod along with outraged friends, or change the subject. We should make it easier to resist that temptation and instead enter into a dialogue about why free speech matters and how it can be protected without running roughshod over values of equality."

2) How can we keep the debate of free speech open while minimizing offense to individuals, according to Salman Rushdie?
Salman Rushdie is one of the most prominent exemplars of the right to offend. The extremists recently attacked him. We all know how he took a different name and went into hiding for a decade from his memoir, Joseph Anton: A Memoir, due to the protests against his book, The Satanic Verses. We can see the author quoting Rushdie's words when he worked along with the author for PEN America (Rushdie was the president of PEN America in the early 2000s).

"You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: People must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it's a belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible."

3) What are the free speech controversies we are facing in our everyday life?
The author mentions all the ways in which free speech is attacked in this book.

“Free speech controversies have become fodder for daily headlines. Hateful speech is on the rise, sometimes linked to hate-fueled crimes, leading some people to question whether freedom of speech is inimical to the values of equality and inclusion. Professors are disciplined or dismissed for offending students. Journalists and celebrities are fired for errant tweets. People argue that articles, poems, and books should be withdrawn from publication because they are offensive, or because the author lacks the life experience to legitimately write them in the first place. Once-obscure legal concepts like defamation and incitement are gaining new vitality. Whether on social media, on TV, or even in everyday conversations, moral denunciation can crowd out thoughtful give and take. Online harassment and denigration are rampant."

4) Why is it important to protect free speech?
With increasing attacks on the people supporting free speech, some people will think about whether we will be able to solve the crisis if free speech is regulated more conservatively. The author perfectly dissects this thought through her words.

"The quest for a diverse, inclusive society is in fact fortified by the defense of free speech, and the case for free speech is more credible and more persuasive when it incorporates a defense of equality as well."

5) Is the first amendment in the USA able to protect freedom of speech?
We have recently witnessed many first amendment battles related to privacy, campaign finance, etc., in recent times.

First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Is this statement enough to protect the freedom of speech? This is a tricky question to ask. The author brilliantly answers it through this book.

"But because its language is confined to governmental infringements, the First Amendment is silent on many of the free speech conflicts of our time. The First Amendment doesn't offer an answer to the censorious power of online mobs who menace individuals on private Internet platforms. With several narrow exceptions, the First Amendment does not tell us how to curb the detrimental effects of hateful speech. The First Amendment cannot establish which content is too vitriolic, bigoted, deceitful, or misleading to be shared online. It doesn't speak to whether or when a private company can punish an employee for offensive speech, nor whether a private university can deny a platform to a white supremacist or a climate change denier. While First Amendment values shape the conduct of private parties, its influence over them is indirect and often voluntary."

6) Is the literary world respecting the freedom of speech?
The answer to the above controversial question is, unfortunately, no. The authors nowadays are really careful not to destroy the religious and emotional sentiments of the readers. Still, it is the author's right to write whatever they want to write.

It is the reader's right to publicly criticize what they didn't like in the book through various means like book reviews, book discussions, and book clubs and to decide whether to read other books written by the author or not based on their writing style, their ideologies, and what they wrote. Things should go like this in the ideal world.

But sadly, things are going differently in the current world. The authors' books are getting banned by different countries for their writing. The authors and even the translators of their books are getting physically attacked and even killed in some unfortunate cases. Similarly, I have seen some instances where the book reviewers are also getting emotionally attacked and reviews getting banned, blocked, and taken down by various sites for raising their opinion. This shows the attitude of the literary world towards freedom of speech. There are only very few people who are behaving in such a terrible manner. But they are sadly damaging the name and hard work of everybody who sincerely works in the field of literature.

Let us hope that the mentality of the people will change and these mishaps won't happen again.

"Fixed rules dictating who is entitled to tell which stories can cramp literary freedom and opportunity, even for writers who are themselves facing barriers. Publishers should not pull books that they have published with conscientiousness and care—especially since online furies reflect the views of only those who join the fray. The power of online indignation to remove books from circulation should worry anyone who believes in free speech."

7) What is the relation between the NYC subway experience and harmonious living?
The Big Apple is a cosmopolitan city with a very diverse type of people. Subway is one of the most preferred ways of public transport in the city, and people from all walks of life and culture almost always travel in it harmoniously.

"Coexisting peaceably with fellow New Yorkers on public transportation turns out to be a lot easier than doing so with people from all over the world in public discourse. The subway experience is no model for harmonious living, but it is an example of coexistence that largely avoids out-and-out conflict. Like our society, the subway system is prone to disruptions and sudden jerks. But the people riding it know how to handle those unsettling eruptions."

8) How can we hold tech companies accountable for their influence on public disclosure?
This is yet another important topic discussed by the author. Many tech companies are acquiring other companies in the current era. It is a well-known fact that some of the tech companies' primary motive is profit, and their interests won't align with the protection of free speech. The author tells us the ways in which we can hold tech companies accountable for their influence on public disclosure.

“•Demand greater transparency in terms of content moderation policies and their implementation

•Consider reforms to platforms immunity from liability for content

•Press platforms to adhere to international human rights laws

•Push for the establishment of a Public Content Defender

•Support greater oversight for content moderation.”

9) How can we foster the expression of difficult ideas?
We should be cautious when we are expressing our viewpoints about controversial topics. The author tells us different things that we should take care of during expression.

"•When expressing a controversial viewpoint, take the time to respectfully hear out the objections and address them

•Marshal facts, evidence, and expertise in support of your case

•Anticipate how your point of view may be misunderstood and try to preempt that

•Make space in your information diet for alternative viewpoints and news sources

•Create and support forums that expose audiences to divergent views.”

10) Why and how should we defend unpopular speech?
History has been very cruel to those expressing different opinions from the conventional ones. The author is saying the importance of defending unpopular speech and various methods to do it.

"•Historically the suppression of disfavored ideas has served to reinforce power structures and suppress dissent

•Engaging with objectionable viewpoints can help refine and strengthen the arguments against them

•When providing a forum for offensive viewpoints to be aired, take care to minimize the opportunity for the speaker to portray such engagement as an endorsement

•Separate the content of the speech from the speakers' right to express themselves—where appropriate reject the former while defending the latter

•Those in leadership roles may need to simultaneously affirm institutional values, show empathy toward those affronted by speech, and affirm the rights of the speaker."

11) How should we call out with caution?
Just as the others have freedom of speech, we have the freedom of speech to call them out. The author is telling us how to raise our voices with caution without canceling them, drawing inspiration from cancel culture.

"•Consider whether to "call in" privately or "call out" publicly based on the circumstances

•When calling out, do so without exaggerating the offense or demonizing the offender

•Seek to ensure that the potency and tone of the callout are proportionate to the offense

•Consider the chilling effect of callouts and cancellations for those other than the target, and ways to avoid deterring future speech and debate

•Avoid mindlessly joining the bandwagon of a callout or a cancellation; make sure to grasp the facts and render your own judgment."

12) Why should we never include blackface on Halloween?
Before talking about political correctness and using blackface during Halloween, you should know the history of using blackface. The practice of using blackface began in the 1830s, with white performers who blackened their faces and mimicked enslaved Africans on Southern plantations. Blackface was used as a mocking portrayal by the white people that tried to falsely reinforce the idea that African-Americans were inferior in every way.

"In 2018, NBC talk show host Megyn Kelly did a segment on Halloween costumes in which she questioned why people object to blackface, adding that when she was growing up it was considered "OK" for people to darken their complexions as long as they were dressing up as a character. Kelly was right that there was a time several decades ago when blackface was more common and not universally recognized—at least not by white people—to be patently offensive, as it is today. But as a television star supported by teams of producers, writers, and researchers, Kelly was justifiably held to a strict standard. She was excoriated for failing to recognize that mores had changed and that blackface, if ever acceptable, is now clearly over the line. A series of glum apologies failed to undo the damage and Kelly was off the air."

My favourite three lines from this book

“The First Amendment: Necessary but Not Sufficient.”

“Using language conscientiously avoids the assumption that your own interpretation of words is universal.”

“While race- or gender-based rules for who can say what would never pass legal muster, in the more informal world of social interactions, they matter.”

What could have been better?
The only negative I can say about this book is that it hasn't yet gotten the success it deserves. It should have been marketed better as I think this is a very important book that all of us should read. This is one of those books that can change how we think about our current world.

Rating
5/5If you love to know, discuss and write about social issues of freedom of speech, this is a book you should never miss.

[Corvus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Whoooh, boy, is this one going to be a doozey- and not in a good way. I virtually picked up "Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All," from the library because it was available and I needed something to pass the time until my intended books became free. Before this, I had never heard of Suzanne Nossel, nor her organization PEN America of which she is the CEO. I knew going in that I might not like it as much of the free speech discourse these days comes from white supremacists or white neo-liberals who want to protect white supremacists. (For those who do not know, I use the term liberal here to refer to liberals in the USA who see themselves as one of only two political options and sometimes think they are leftists when they actually occupy the center-right wing these days while most conservatives in the USA occupy the far right wing.) I did not realize just how much I would detest this book. I tried to keep an open mind and I finished it for one reason: no one can claim I took away her "free speech" before reviewing it.

The first thing you need to know is that Nossel is a liberal white cis Jewish woman who is also a Zionist. The oppression you will see given the most attention and direct reference in this book is anti-semitism. Anti-semitism should absolutely be included in a big way within these discussions. However, as time passed, it became clear that either consciously or unconsciously, Nossel can only really see oppression that would affect her personally. Furthermore, despite having multiple sections calling out the problems with exaggerated responses to overstated harm (something I agree with,) she also calls any critique of Israel and any Palestinian liberation activism anti-Semitic. She does this multiple times, so I am sure that I am not just misunderstanding a one off comment. I was able to tell the exact demographics that Nossel came from before I looked her up based on her writing. She also uses multiple examples of her complete cluelessness and inability to see oppression that does not affect her- even if people are telling her directly and explaining it.

The most glaring examples of this are, once again, multiple anecdotes about Black women coming forward to talk about quite obvious racism either overtly or in the form of microaggressions. Every time, Nossel openly admits to not believing what happened was racist and needing these Black women to walk her through it and explain to her even further why something is racist. This is not the only instance of this kind of thing. So, Nossel not only calls liberation movements antisemitic by default, she also defaults to NOT believing victims of racism and misogynoir until they make a massive case about what should be blatantly obvious to someone who is the CEO of a freeze peach organization. She does mention how she eventually is convinced, but it exemplifies a long pattern of her contradicting herself in almost every argument she makes, most of the time defaulting more to protecting the oppressor and calling for limitation of the speech of the oppressed ironically enough.

Another glaring issue that shows the privileged viewpoint that strengthens Nossel's unawareness of reality is how she will make a statement, then claim she "sees no evidence" to the contrary. One such argument is that racist or other oppressive speech does not have any lasting impact on the targeted population. Are you serious? The only reason she "sees no evidence" of the harms of oppressive vitriol is because she didn't look for it. There are extensive social psych and sociology studies on this. How anyone could think that protected white supremacist speech has no lasting impact is beyond me. Once again, a very troublesome (but unsurprising) stance from a white liberal free-speech-at-all-costs type.

Where else does she contradict herself or misinform you may ask? Well, to detail every instance would require this review to be close to the length of her book. Instead, I will focus on the remaining ones that made my brain explode in irritation and wtf-ery. One of my favorites is how she basically insists that the best way to fight white supremacist fascists is to give them a platform and it will either resolve itself or a "debate" will resolve things. Basically, let the white supremacists gather unfettered and they will go away- there is no evidence that this is the case. She invokes anecdotes where antifa, campus activists, and others had a huge hand in resolving, and boils the success down to "just let the nazis talk and, see, they will just go away!" Once again, she insists that having Nazis speeches and rallies on campus does not have lasting impacts in the negative for the targeted populations. She claims that the best solution to hate speech is giving them a platform and then using "counterspeech" to combat them. She argues that absolutely any belief or point can be successfully argued with the right words (yes, including white supremacy- I guess just use the right dog whistles and it will all be ok.) So, I disagree with this, but I thought, hey, I understand the argument and will continue to hear her out.

The problem is that she follows this with a section on all of the kinds of "counterspeech" that you should not use. No distruptions, no blockades, no protest that isn't 100% legal and state sanctioned, no interruptions, nothing that would in any way disrupt the platform of the Nazis or other harmful speakers. So, what counterspeech is the best antidote for hate speech? Very little apparently. As a result, Nossel does what many liberal freeze peach proponents do- they actually fight for the most deplorable people to have the right to speak while simultaneously taking away the speech of those most affected and kettling them into a little metaphorical free speech zone. She has a clear disdain for antifa actions, disruptive protest, and pretty much anything effective. If you aren't willing to sit a nazi down to tea and have a logical discussion about why genocide is bad, you're an enemy of free speech and freedom.

There's more. In her discussion on hate speech she talks about hate crimes. Who better to be the arbiters of justice and stopping hate than... the police? There is not a single mention of how often cops are the ones who commit the hate crimes. There is no mention of the problems with racism and other oppression at the hands of police. She discusses them as tools and heroes in the fight against hate. Ok, when is this happening? I will not hold my breath (unless a cop forces me to, I guess.) Her romanticism of the police is matched by her fawning over the founding fathers, not realizing the irony that the laws she invokes where not written with her included and definitely were not written with Black women included. When a Black woman says to her at an event, "the first amendment was not written for me," Nossel once again doesn't get it and needs to be dragged along wherein she still doesn't really get it. In true white liberal fashion though, she does manage to repeatedly quote Martin Luther King Jr out of context, sticking to the quotes white people like, and ignoring the ones that would have called out this book for the mockery that it is. If you want to talk about the importance of free speech, maybe don't glorify slave owning white fathers of genocide.

The sad thing is, there are some good ideas here. Criticism of callout culture, especially when misdirected due to false information, the problems with overstating harm and calling any disagreement "violence," how any restriction of free speech can possibly be used against marginalized people, and so on. This book could have been a decent exercise of, "I disagree, but I hear you." Instead, it just left me feeling happy that it is not a popular book and hoping that the contradictions and misinformation do not spread outside its pages.

This was also posted to my blog.

[Dawn Michelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for everyone. When my mind stops reeling, I may be able to write a better review.
WOW.

[Wei Mon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Things learned from this book:
It's fine to be racist with friends as long as you choose your words carefully in public.
If you think your intent is fine, then don't worry about the consequences of your speech.
You shouldn't say that being subjected to hateful speech is "violence", but it's totally okay to call people who are asking for accountability "mobs".
The general public should not have the power to cancel people & restrict opportunities, but rich white people have been the gatekeepers for so long & should be allowed to keep doing their thing even though they have a history of silencing dissenting voices.
Harm from hate speech doesn't have a lasting impact! Let me run & tell my therapist.
Wanting people to stop being racist is apparently equivalent to wanting the government to come in & control speech.

Also I would just like to point out that harping on college students for protesting instead of "engaging with the content" or whatever, is dumb & infantilizing. Like they wouldn't protest if they hadn't already engaged with the content & found it disagreeable. & why is the burden on them to listen to the other side & not on the lecturer who is saying offensive things?

I am also not sure I trust her research. Snapchat is not a subsidiary of either Facebook or Google, as the author said during her tirade against social media companies. When making the case for anti-bias training, she conveniently picked studies from Sweden, Russia, & Indonesia which were in favor of training, even though I believe she was talking about anti-bias training in a US-context. & also a quick Google search (& lived experience) says that anti-bias training is dubious. Her fact checker/editor probably should have done another pass.

Overall, there are a lot more threats to free speech than call out culture. I wish she had focused on wealthy people's lobbying efforts, voter suppression, police intimidation, etc.

[May · Rating 4 out of 5]

A buddy read with Amr

While I've been on the fence with regards to applying new restrictions to free speech (specifically hate speech) for quite some time, this well-researched, concise defence of the free exchange of ideas has completely won me over, which I believe is evidence that it has achieved its purpose.

The ideal of free speech as a principle that applies universally, a precept that has equal importance to the powerful and the powerless and that transcends questions of race, gender, age, and other identities, is fading.

I've always been a huge supporter of the adage, "you're free to express yourself but you are not free from the consequences"; however, Dare to Speak makes the compelling argument that if this were the case in the past, many of the rights we have today would not have come to exist, for instance, women's suffrage, LGBTQ+ rights, and even the abolition of slavery, would have been impossible because of government censorship over speech and expression. It cautions us that relinquishing this most valuable right would give those in power even more control over our lives and and this in turn would further disempower the disenfranchised, instead of helping alleviate suffering and create a more equal society.

The question we ask is not whether particular speech is worthy of protection but whether we want to afford our government the leeway to restrict it, knowing that once such power is granted, officials will use it as they see fit.

That being said, the author does recognise that certain rules have to be followed in order to facilitate discourse and protect minorities; however, this responsibility rwould fall to the listener and the speaker themselves, not any governing bodies.

To illustrate, here are the principles that a speakers should keep in mind when voicing their opinions:

★ Be conscientious with language "In a diverse society, those speaking publicly should assume their audience includes a full spectrum in terms of age, gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, religion, and ideology."

★ Exercise a duty of care when speaking "Those in positions of institutional authority—university leaders, school principals, clergy, elected officials, and corporate executives—owe an added duty of care tied to the leadership roles they hold. While such individuals may technically be free to speak and write in their personal capacity, what they say may reverberate widely and be construed to reflect on their institution. This puts a heavy onus on those in leadership to think before they speak."

★ Find ways to express difficult ideas "When someone makes the effort to set forth a controversial viewpoint in a reasoned, respectful manner, listeners should credit that effort. If even measured, thoughtful expressions of disputable viewpoints are met with censoriousness, there is little incentive to moderate language, forge common ground, or persist in good-faith public discourse."

★ Defend the right to voice unpopular speech "...the law, institutions, and even the citizenry must be prepared to defend and protect speech that is unpopular, distasteful, offensive, and even menacing...It is unquestionably true that offensive speech often targets members of less powerful groups and can inflict harm. But the corollary—that government prohibitions on speech can effectively protect such populations—is false. If anything, minority voices are more likely to be stifled by tighter curbs on speech imposed by those in power."

★ Apologise when you've said something wrong "

.......

On the other hand, listeners should:

★ Consider intent and context when reacting to speech "Before calling something offensive, it’s worth asking whether the insult was willful. An absence of malice may not absolve a speaker, but it’s relevant to weighing culpability and consequences."

“It’s so much easier and simpler to decide someone is racist or ignorant or naïve—or anti-Semitic—than to engage in the messy work of trying to communicate and understand when conflicts arise.” - Benjamin Levine

★ Call out with caution "While your basic “callout” is a straightforward expression of free speech, in the digital world, it is easy for callouts to metastasize, delivering a punishment vastly disproportionate to the underlying offense. By calling people out publicly online, critics invite an echo chamber to resound in approval. That can turn a warranted, measured takedown into an avalanche of bullying that can cross into the physical realm."

★ Fight hateful speech and hateful crimes "Factors for Determining When Speech is Dangerous: ❖ A dehumanizing point of view ❖ Telling people they face a mortal threat from a disfavored or minority group
❖ Identity and influence of the speaker
❖ Susceptibility of the audience to the message
❖ Communication medium
❖ Political and social context"

★ Protest without silencing "Censorious protests can feel triumphant to their participants, but they interfere with the speech rights of the targeted speaker and of listeners who wish to hear the message. By shouting down speech, protesters put their opinions ahead of all others. They assign the power to decide who gets to speak to those with the greatest numbers or loudest voices, traducing norms designed to give everyone a chance to be heard."

The Heckler’s Veto:
When protesters prevent a speaker from being heard and block willing listeners from hearing out speech. They may do so through physical barricades, drowning out speech with loud noise, or creating a level of disorder that forces authority figures to shut down the event.

★ Consider when to forgive speech related transgressions "To keep speech free in our cacophonous modern public square, we need the capacity to forgive those who antagonize and offend. Otherwise, there can be little incentive to apologize for an offense or try to mitigate its harm."

.......

Subsequently, the author elucidates and expounds on the harms of certain types of speech which can be righteously prohibited by the government such as threats and harassment; however, she also makes the point that,While our goal as a society should be to ensure that all people feel physically safe, whether on campus or on our streets, that objective should not spill over into a guarantee of psychological safety, or freedom from uncomfortable or offensive ideas. Knowing where to draw the line between genuine and exaggerated harms is crucial."

In addition, she cautions against equating some forms of speech to physical violence as this would then motivate us to ban it and treat it as something that it is not. We should always bear in mind that we are always quite willing to censor speech that does not align with our values but on the other hand we would be incensed if we were the ones silenced. "Hypocrisy abounds...Where problems are identified, measures such as hiring for viewpoint diversity and intensified dialogue between administrators and ideologically heterogeneous student groups are preferable to speech-related regulation by the state."

The discussions regarding the role of social media in regulating free speech or prohibiting it according to their own community guidelines or rules were by far the most interesting, but they were also the most frightening.

On social media, mocking memes travel farther and faster than measured reasoning. That online conversations often take place in algorithmically reinforced echo chambers of the like-minded—what left-wing author and activist Eli Pariser dubbed the “filter bubble”—exacerbates the problem. If what begin as outlandish characterizations go unchallenged, there is no incentive to moderate. Taunts and denigration beget more of the same. The result is a game aimed at virtue-signaling, profile-building, and point-scoring rather than finding common ground, clarifying differences, or revealing truth.

We are also warned that while allowing social media companies or "Big Tech" to censor speech usually stems from our good intentions to make these services more welcoming and more inclusive to minorities and oppressed groups, granting them this much power over what gets to be said and who gets to say it it might not be the most prudent step to take. Basically we are replacing government with Facebook and Twitter.

"Many of the fears we associate with government controls over speech—that dissent will be suppressed, that the open exchange of ideas will shrivel or skew, and that power over speech will be abused to benefit those that wield it—are as applicable to conglomerates as they are to a national government. While a tech company doesn’t have the authority to arrest and prosecute you, its ability to delete your posts and shut down your accounts is a potent form of social control, and not subject to the appeals and other constraints of our legal system."

Furthermore, preventing questionable ideas from being published confers the advantage of playing the martyr or the victim by those whose ideas are repressed, regardless of the rationale behind this repression. It behooves us to keep in mind that media companies are not primarily motivated by their sense of social responsibility, rather they're in it for the money. This would lead to something like geo-blocking, wherein access to particular content [is blocked] within specific countries...to maintain access to global markets, even when the content that they are required to block is expression that should be protected under international law.

Finally, Nossel highlights several innovative modifications to the content moderation aspect of social media, such as implementing a public content defender service, forcing tech companies to be more transparent about which content gets taken down and why, as well as providing channels to complain about unfair removal of posts, for instance.

I guess the most important message I would be taking with me today is that,

Pushing noxious speech into encrypted channels makes it more difficult for law enforcement to track the spread of extremist ideologies. When bigoted sentiments are out in the open, you can trace who is expressing them, dispute them, and protect against attempts to act on them.

Yes, I've been convinced. I believe this book provides fairly comprehensive arguments for the protection of free speech even though it might offend people sometimes, and as someone living in a country where society itself prohibits certain ideas from even being put on the table, I am well aware of how this freedom is oftentimes underappreciated. No ideas are safe from criticism, no values should be taken for granted, and with the exception of very narrow constraints such as when inciting people to imminent violence, doling out threats, harassment, defamation and other illegal forms of speech, everything else is debatable. In short, we should try to cultivate the psychological and mental sturdiness to withstand offensive remarks and unpopular, controversial opinions, while honing our arguments against them instead of instinctively shutting them down completely.

A highly recommended read. 4.5 ✰

[Elaine · Rating 4 out of 5]

Caveat: The author is a good personal friend.

Dare to Speak is a lucid, well organized, and highly readable defense of free speech principles as well as an outline for actions we can all take to be better participants in the marketplace of ideas. I found the parts on Internet content moderation particularly interesting.

I must admit that I agree with everything Suzanne says (after all, as mentioned, she's a friend) but I wonder if her balanced, thoughtful, considerate yet principled voice even has a place in the chaotic mess of clicks, cancellations, fake news and trolls that exists today. Her, and my, time may have passed.

The clarion call theme that comes through, though, and that rings entirely true for me is that restrictions on speech have never been a good thing, historically. Calls for government - or Big Tech, or university admin - regulation of speech seem benign, but look around you. Who would actually be doing the regulating?

All in all, a very nicely done book - I long for a world that has the patience and the nuance to heed it.

[Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoughtfully written and practicable guide to understanding, utilizing and promoting matters of free speech. It sure got my noodle going and I suspect it will help me ask my seniors engaging questions during our Free Speech unit in French class.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

When Free Speech Fell Out of Fashion
By Michael Maiello

What if all the good free speech has been defended already? The United States government hasn’t gone after James Joyce, DH Lawrence or Theodore Dreiser in a long time. While the occasional local library might perk up against this book or that, it seems like the real free speech fights are all about Twitter running the right wing QAnon conspiracy group off of its platform or whether Ann Coulter or Milo Yiannopoulos can visit a college campus. Even progressives who value freedom of speech highly yawn at that stuff.

Who really wants to go to the mat for the organizers of a white supremacy march looking for a parade permit? Who has the time, energy or spirit to want to stick up for those people? Free speech has an image problem. If the voices most prominent suppressed by legal, corporate or cultural voices are the ones spreading hate, racism, conspiracies and misinformation, folks will not lose sleep over it.

In her new book, Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech in Our Time (HarperCollins, July 2020), PEN America president Suzanne Nossel explores our collective willingness to loosen our commitment to the First Amendment in favor of other values that seem at least as important right now. “If free speech is discounted as a retrograde precept used mainly to provide a safe harbor for hateful ideologies, these protections will be vulnerable as political attitudes evolve,” she writes.

Attitudes are changing quickly among the young, who seem to take a narrow view of free speech rights (only the government can censor you, nobody has a right to a book deal) and who increasingly believe the government should get into the content regulation business. In 2017, Smith College surveyed its students and asked if “free speech should be granted to everyone regardless of how intolerant they are of other people’s opinions.” Only half said yes. When Smith conducted the same survey in 2007, 70% answered affirmatively. Pew says that 40% of Millenials support the government regulating speech that might be offensive to minorities. Nossel recalls a Black woman employee at PEN telling her “The First Amendment wasn’t written for me,” and then concedes that her employee had a point.

Nossel sees danger here and attempts to address it from a couple of a couple of angles. First, her book is a defense of free speech as an innate human right, necessary for self-governance, economic success and all creative endeavours. But she recognizes this is not enough. While Pen America steadfastly defends, say, the rights of white novelists to write from the point of view of characters from other cultures and while it refuses to support boycotts that threaten to stop publications or to shutter events, she believes that the commitment to freedom of speech will only erode if other values aren’t included.

So, for example, while she’ll defend the rights of white authors to create whatever characters they want, she’ll also push the publishing industry to diversify itself, for its own good and the good of society. Maybe people would object less to the white voice if it weren’t the only voice. She also warns against needless provocation, particularly online, and counsels that better quality speech (knowing what you’re talking about) might pre-empt those social media cultural cancellations that get so much press. It’s the ignorant statement, rather than the innocent statement, that tends to cause people trouble, after all. Also, cool it on calling people “snowflakes.” It doesn’t help.

Of activists compelled to protest the speech of others, Nossel has some requests that will likely be ignored. Say your piece, she says, but stop short of drowning out the speaker. Attack ideas with enthusiasm, she says, but if your activism denies other people the chance to hear a talk, buy a book or see a film, you’ve gone too far. Eschew “The Heckler’s Veto” and don’t celebrate using social power to get people removed from their jobs or books pulled from store shelves. But Nossel’s call for civility has already been rejected by activists who claim the rules for civil debate seem designed specifically to mute their impact.

All of this seems to point towards either a resurgence of government regulation of the content of speech or for the government to encourage and reward large companies and social media platforms for acting on its behalf by running services that look like public spaces but are, in fact, gated gardens where owners can make the rules.

Our current system, where the government takes a largely neutral approach to speech content is only a century old, emanating from Oliver Wendell Holmes’ dissent in Abrams vs. The United States where the Supreme Court allowed for the imprisonment of left wing activists protesting the U.S. contravention of the Russian Revolution. We could easily slip backwards.

“University of Michigan Law professor Catharine A. MacKinnon argues that judicial interpretations of the First Amendment have been progressively corrupting, such that ‘once a defense of the powerless, the First Amendment over the last hundred years has mainly become a weapon of the powerful.’” writes Nossel. “She decries that a one-time shelter for radicals, artists, and activists is now used to protect Nazis, Klansmen, racists, and misogynists.”

Countries in the European Union routinely ban hate speech, Holocaust denial and the like. Such laws would be unconstitutional here, but Nossel sees that public opinion is shifting to where most people would likely accept such prohibitions as fine. Then, if laws also required social networks to conform, people wouldn’t object to that either. To most people, the EU is hardly oppressive. So what if it’s illegal for some chump to show off his white power tattoos?

The full-throated defense of even abhorrent speech might become an extreme position in American politics. Nossel is committed to it and her book is necessary right now, both as a guide for how to argue and as a celebration of the moral foundation of an open society. Nossel should win the day. But I’m skeptical she will.

[Philip · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Dare to Speak" is Nossel's defense of Free Speech, her argument for what Free Speech is and what it isn't, and her advice on how to defend it while trying to cause as little offense as possible. As is evident in some of the other reviews, one could argue that she failed one way or the other (too politically left or too politically right) or one could argue that she succeeded (as evidenced by her managing to offend both sides of the political spectrum).

Personally, I think the book is well worth a read as one person's - albeit with pretty good credentials, but still one person's - two cents on the topic. I found a lot of very good points and arguments here. I also found some bones to pick. Overall though, the good far outweighed the more questionable and the importance of Free Speech (or, as it were, somewhat limited Free Speech - but enough to still be legitimate Free Speech) should not be underestimated. Although, I do think that the author may overestimate it a bit.

So how about that "both sides hated it" bit, who's right? Well, neither is wrong, there are definitely things in "Dare to Speak" that will go against the grain of partisan readers of all colors - naturally, as Nossel also notes in the book, since people generally support Free Speech when they agree with what's being said but not so much when they don't - but she definitely skews left (at least on the American political spectrum).

Regardless, I don't have a problem with this, she is after all arguing for the defense of Free Speech even for those she disagrees with. That, I think, should be the take-away for everyone here, even if you find a thing or two in it to disagree with. Nonetheless, I liked the book well enough, but I highly doubt that I'll pick it up again.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

A lot of good stuff about free speech, but a little too mixed up with progressive movement politics for my taste. I’d rather a book about free speech remain above the political fray, or at least be even-handed. Also the book was a little like a handout for a speech, lots of little listicles and summaries.

[Ben · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not what I was expecting.

Not very impressed by this read.

2.0/5

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

My original review of this book gave it 2 stars, but upon further reflection I think I'll give it 3.5 (or I would if Goodreads would allow half stars!).

There's a lot I agree with in this book. Most importantly, that free speech and expression are hugely important, especially for those amongst us who have been marginalized. And that it's important to be forgiving (to some extent) when people make mistakes with their language and they apologize sincerely. I also think she makes a lot of sense when she explains that expanded government controls on free speech could easily be used to silence dissent (especially considering the book was written while Trump was still president).

However, there are some things about Nossel's argument(s) that I definitely don't agree with. The one that I remember the most is the idea that we should never disinvite a speaker or protest them too much (because this will apparently silence their perspective). I find this idea pretty ridiculous. Nossel uses Milo Yiannopoulos as an example. He was definitely being loud and awful without the help of invitations to speak on college campuses.

I also found the idea that one of the reasons we should allow for "controversial" speech is so that we can publicly debate and denounce it, and hopefully change a few minds. But most people who are who have hate in their hearts don't want to debate and they don't want to listen, they want to cause harm. I think Nossel definitely overlooks this. She's very optimistic about the ability of free speech to change people's minds, which is admirable, but is probably not practical.

I should've taken notes while I read the book because there were a million more things that I agreed with and disagreed with, but I can't remember them now! Overall, I think Nossel makes some good points about the importance of free speech/expression. But I definitely found myself thinking, quite often, that protecting free speech of people filled with hatred is not more important than protecting the wellbeing of marginalized people.

[Joy · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

[Graeme Rodaughan]

Recommended to me by Margaret Atwood on Bookbub.

[Kaley · Rating 3 out of 5]

This books should definitely be read as part of discussions on free speech; however it suffers serious issues from its organization.

Part IV is by far the strongest section, where practical problems and discussions are discussed in full. Through the first 2/3 of the book, I was frustrated, constantly asking, what about "this" and "hasn't the author considered x and y", all of which was answered in the last 1/3rd of the book.

There is also a lack of detailed explanation about the true differences between Free Speech as a concept, and the 1st amendment. This is discussed briefly in the latter part of the book; however someone who isn't as familiar with the ideas would likely be confused. As many people do, they are confusingly conflated throughout the discussion about college campuses.

The general takeaway is a defense of free speech with a focus on personal resiliency in the face of problematic or damaging speech and a call on the individual to stand up to problematic, hateful speech with full throated, enthusiastic rebuttal and defense of those being targeted and to not allow the right to say something be the end of it. The discussion of the various roles tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter play is helpful and there is some solution-based discussion, but the arguments seem to boil down into individuals taking greater care to be conscientious with their speech, to defend the right to free speech, but not necessarily the message of that speech, and to avoid the calls to censorship and formal rules as solutions to hateful and damaging messages.

Despite the issues, I do recommend it as a read, but I'd suggest working through the book in a near-backwards order, starting with the basics of restrictions, discussions on tech giants, then to the discussion of campus free speech issues, and finally to the beginning with ways to be an better member of the public through conscientious speech .

[Shannen · Rating 1 out of 5]

This has to be one of the worst made arguments I have ever read - and I agree with some of Nossel's stances on these issues. I picked up this book because I took a class on Intellectual Freedom and was interested in reading more about free speech issues. I had high hopes because I read a number of PEN America articles in the course of class-related research. Good heavens what an absolute waste of time this book was.

I have some notes of specific bits that hit as red flags for me, but the gist of it is that this book reads like an opinion piece wherein Nossel beats you over the head with the idea that free speech shouldn't be curtailed for any reason or by any one. Nossel's account amounts to dumping specters of authoritarian policing of speech upfront - she clearly feels people can be hurt by being silenced - and dismissing arguments and accounts that conflict with her own experience or her narrative. She insists words never hurt anyone in a way that evokes both condescension (the book leans heavily on an academic perspective and Nossel presents herself as reasonable and neutral) and the image of siblings fighting in the back seat of a car during a road trip while one is insisting "I'm not touching you!" - because only physical things can hurt you, you see. (Though as a side note I'm sure one of the psychology books I recently read cites evidence of verbal abuse having similar long term effects to physical abuse...but I don't have the details for that on hand to verify...) In any case when Nossel finally presents some meat to back up her arguments - 70% into the book - the legal background I expected to see at the beginning of the book (though abbreviated and omitting deviations into censorship), and at least pointing her finger at examples of overly controlled speech in other countries (but without really exploring these examples), I think she had lost most of her audience. Despite her opening chapter delving into mindfullness in speaking and her insistence that more speech and open discussion can lead the masses to rational thought, she does a really shit job of making her case for free speech and working to persuade others to adopt her views on the subject. Much of the book is just her insisting that we shouldn't make any additional restrictions on free speech because it would be bad, very bad. And people who think they are hurt by other people speaking are just succumbing to having the idea planted in their head that they will be hurt and becoming self-fulfilling prophesies.

I'm going to scrap most of my nit-picking here and stick to the highlights of the highlights. Nossel sprinkles a lot of buzz words and phrases around that we went over in class - "chilling" (having a chilling effect on free speech) being a prime example - but she doesn't really discuss what this means, even when she finally covers some of the legal background in a late chapter in the book! It would have served her better to lay a foundation of background at the beginning of the book and then bring these standards, landmark cases, and tests up again as she presented modern examples of free speech conflicts. Concepts like the right to be forgotten are given a brief mention but are largely swept to the side by Nossel asserting and emphasizing her insistence on a near absolute freedom of speech (exceptions are minimalized and touched on breifly in the later chapters, mainly as an acknowledgement that they exist rather than an endorsement of them).

Likewise Nossel makes weird, lengthy observations of...not quite other points of view, but acknowledgements that other people have different ideas and experiences (and more nuanced opinions) about free speech conflicts. She sort of sets the stage for this at the beginning of the book by mentioning that peoples' opinions on the subject largely exist on a spectrum with free speech on one end and protecting minority - or, as she was corrected, excluded - persons' rights on the other. She then kind of slams anyone for valuing those rights over free speech rights, as ultimately truly free speech is the only way to really protect their rights. Which, to some extent I get and agree with. Unfortunately we're seeing an increased weaponization of speech policing unwind in real time - the latest proclaimations about flag burning in defiance of the SC precedent being a prime example. But Nossel also completely disregards - and to an extent gaslights - people who are harmed by the expression of others. This is particularly disturbing when at the end Nossel does make passing mention of things like threats and incitement and defamation. She acknowledges that these things exist and have been ruled as unprotected speech - but doesn't make the connection to real people on the ground who are hurt by fear mongering and suchlike. She even mentions a peer who felt a racial motive in being dismissed that Nossel herself did not note. Her aggressive grounding in her own bias and experience undermine her own points about authors who are denied the right to imagine experiences outside their own (clearly she has no such capacity herself), and insistence that those who screw up and say something bad act largely in accidental ignorance, and some exposure to more speech will cure them of all their bad ideas. Clearly people have told her about their experiences, she acknowledges them and then denies them. She rejects the arguments of others, citing research that supports her own opinions (in a way that reeks of cherry picked sources), while insisting she can't find any evidence that contradicts her own ideas about how the world works.

So largely I am not a fan of this book or the way the information was presented. If this had been my first exposure to these concepts I would be resistant to Nossel's opinions when encountered later because of the way she presents them here and it would take someone a lot more persuasive to change my mind.

[Zibby Owens · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is so much information in this book. After reading, it almost felt like this book should be the main resource on free speech. Every family should have it. Every lawyer should have it. Everyone should have this book on their shelf to help answer any questions they may have about the topic of free speech.

The author is at the stepping stone of her career where not only is her book a wonderful resource, but she is also leading a great company, PEN, in helping enhance speech and thought throughout the world.

To listen to my interview with Suzanne, go to my podcast at: https://zibbyowens.com/transcript/suz...

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Free speech, like everything else in life, is “complicated.” This author lays out, with clarity and manifold examples, the nuances of the issue. In a very evenhanded way, she explains free speech issues from historical, legal, cultural, governmental, economic and social points of view. A first-rate approach to a very timely issue. 3.5*

[John Howard Hassmann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wish I didn’t have to read this in 2 days for school. There were some gaps that I wish she touched on such as the mythological bedrock of the Logos, but mainly stuff that doesn’t fall within her realm of expertise. I immediately (yet begrudgingly) found myself liking a book written by a Clinton/Obama cabinet member that I didn’t expect to like as a more conservative agent myself. Nossel is great at precise locution, lucid argumentation, and equitable, moderate, framing and advancement of policy that doesn’t involve political point scoring. Her sentence arrangement and breadth of vocabulary is also off the charts. Clarion, opprobrium, vituperation, obloquy. C’mon now Suzanne. As far as books on free speech go, there’s a lot to learn as a neophyte like me or a tenured law school professor. Kudos to her. Go girl boss.

[Marge Congress · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very scholarly discussion which is made easier to understand by many examples of the principles she is writing about, this book about the First Amendment and its many permutations and occurrences brings many ideas and thoughts to the reader. My recommendation is to skip the introduction (really hard to read), and read only one big section at a time. At the end of a section she does a few bullet points for you to remember. Read those till you understand them, wait a few days, then continue.

The author tends to repeat particular cases in several sections, but that helps cement them in your mind.

During this time, when we question everything that is said and don't express ourselves clearly, this is an important book.

[Rosie · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book sucked/ I disagreed with most of it. Freedom of speech is important, sure, but so is not advocating for discrimination/ racism/ hostility. This author clearly valued the former much more, and I value the latter. White women have done it again…

[Claire]

May need to start separately categorizing/tagging books I read for work so as not to affect my non-existent ~brand~

[Mark Mortensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was drawn to this book by the title, as who is against free speech? The author makes some good basic points; however she seems to lean towards the protection and guidelines of political correctness (PC), which I am not a fan of. In one chapter she focuses on the link of hate speech to hate crimes, terms she supports. I believe in basic law where any crime is a crime and therefore one should not to divide society and elevate friction with labels of hate speech.

[Fredrik · Rating 2 out of 5]

If this book is our best defense of free speech, then we should just cancel it now.

Nossel goes far in this book to defend the restriction of free speech and for consequences to be everlasting. She argues for words being offensive, just because it doesn't give enough blame on society, which in itself is a red flag for the rest of the book.

Nossel isn't consequent in her assessment of how we should treat speech. This is glaringly obvious in the first half of this book. She goes out of her way to mention every time someone is a white man, while it having no refrence to the story or anecdote she is giving at the time.
Take the white man whos ambition affected his wifes ambitions and who apologized for being part of a societal structure of women oppression.
Why mention that he is white? Is this something that doesn't happen with black men? What about if his wife had been black? By explicitly mentioning his "race", she is telling us that it matters. For me, it isn't obvious how.
Which brings us to his apology. I am all for self-insight and to better oneself. That is part of growing as a human. We all do stuff that we aren't proud of and that we should grow past. They are however two people here. Did he force this on her? If yes, then that apology wasn't enough. If they both agreed to the arrangement and there is no ill will between them, then why is he apologizing?
This kind of virtual signaling isn't something to be praised, but something to be shunned. Either we excect people to always vent their sins, imaginary and real, born with or by their own making, every time they say anything, or we demoralize and shun people virtual signaling for no reason.
Nossel might have had a valid point in there somewhere, but if she thought the story spoke for itself, well, it didn't.

Which brings us over to Kevin Hart. When speaking about white women, later in the book, she talks about how after someone has apologized, people should move on. Of course, only if it felt heartfelt and sincere. Those things can be faked and some people can be sincere and it not showing on their body language. That is however a whole other problem.
You see, when the white women apologize, we should move on, forget it. Nossel also stresses that you can't expect someone to apologize for the same sentence or action again and again.
Unless your name is Kevin Hart.
I do not know if this is because he is black , or if it is because he is a man. Nossel, in her example, holds Kevin Hart to a different examples than everything she mentioned both before and after.
Nossel mentiones multiple times how Kevin Hart should have apologized the second time, straight away. How he should have been humble, acted more sincere and so forth.
She says the Globes should have done better research and not have hired him for his tweet, that he has since apologized for and explained. Kevin Hart should be held accountable for all his past crimes, for the rest of his life. If Nossel ment something else, then she probably should have explained it differently.
When Hart "attacks" the media, for not noticing or finding his other apology, then he is at fault.
He is "attacking" the media, "explaining away" and so forth. So the Globe should have done better research, but news paper should always post everything negative without any research at all.
She goes the other route, later in the book, but here she thinks Hart should not expect, and should not blame, the media for doing the opposite of what Nossel herself finds moral.

So when does Hart have to stop apologizing? If you cannot expect people to know about, or even care about, the last time you did so, then you have to do it every time you say anything in public. If Kevin Hart doesn't want to be canceled, then by Nossels reckoning, he should always explain away past misdeeds.

Nossel also argues for the changing both of stories and history, by removing any words that might offend. She uses proffessor Stones as an example. The story Stones presents, has one kid hit another for using the N word. His story is about how you should always think about the hurt those words can bring on others. The story he tells, shows us that we should be careful with our words and how they affect others and why we should be mindful about them. This got an outrage, because of the use of the N-word once.
I can understand how the word is offensive, but if it cannot be used in the setting of a story, a re-telling of real life, word by word, a quotation, then we might as well forever stay silent.
Why aren't these young people trying to cancel rap stations? Why not ban rap albums? I understand that black people are allowed to use it. Some even take pride in it. That doesn't change anything. When Stones retold the story, would it have had a different reaction if it was the black kid who had uttered the words?
What about a court case, where the defendant has tried to aggrevate the other person to attack by using the N word. Would the court have to ignore it, since the defendant is white, maybe his laywer is as well, and the utter thought of them having to utter it or retell it, would have to great a consequence?
I am in no way excusing anyone who uses it at other person or as a swear word. Neither did Stones. Nossel, the defender of free speech, finds it okay for the students to react and try to fire the proffessor.

Which brings us over the case of someone teaching the evolution of slurs, which got the same treatment as Stones. Again, Nossel agrees with there being consequences for this professor.
If people can't even teach us how words became taboo and hurtful, then how can you expect future generation to respect it and to keep away from it?

At this point, I'm not even halfway through my notes on this book. Almost all of them are of the first half of this book.
The last half, almost made this into a three star rating. It was good, insightful and articulated. Mostly, at least. I know about the "end vs. average" trap, so my notes brought it back to where it should be. The last part could have been flawless, and it would still barely have become a three star.
She talked about how the US has less restrictions on free speech than Europe. She argues for how the US should not even try to limit itself to the restrictions that Europe has.
She says this, while the first half argues for us to limit or speech, to aplogizie for society at large everytime you speak or act on basic instict, for the rest of your life. She says this, while arguing that people should lose their job, just for doing their job. So far, this hasn't been a problem in Europe. Hopefully we never get to the oppression and systematic silencing of opinions that the US has at the moment. Nossel sure is fighting for it though.
If she had focused on words not equaling violence, social media and its influences, then this book could have been a four star. The first half is just an endless tirade against everything free speech stands for.
I haven't even talked about how a minor act, like off-handedly ignoring a small black women comment, shouldn't warrant forgives if you apologize. That you Nossel thinks it is rightful to expect the person to earn the forgives, of not just that act, but the social structure, the build up of society, that led to you ignoring the small black women. How can anyone earn forgiveness for all that? How can we expect someone to even try, or be held accountable?
I could write a book in answer to this one. I have too many notes and too little time.

I really had hoped this would be a thoughtful and thought provoking book. It was, in many ways thought provoking, but only in its gross stupidity. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions. We just can't expect to never slip up, to apologize for our "race", gender, society, in every single encounter we have.

If this is the last bastion of Free Speech, then the war is already lost. We might as well cut out our tongues and the tip of our fingers. Hope no one learns sign-language, because then it all starts over.

[Beth Mowbray · Rating 4 out of 5]

As CEO of PEN America, a graduate of Harvard Law School, and with experience working in a range of settings from the State Department to Amnesty International USA, Suzanne Nossel definitely has the qualifications needed to take on the thorny topic of free speech. And that’s just what she does with her new book.

In Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech For All, Nossel argues that freedom of speech and the fight against prejudice can, and in fact must, co-exist. She explores the boundaries of free speech to delineate how speech can be protected while also ensuring it does not encroach upon other vital human rights and values. Nossel firmly asserts that most speech should not be banned or limited in any way and, furthermore, goes on to offer an explanation of why this is so important, as well as how society at large should go about supporting this approach. This unexpectedly challenging read — not in style, but in content — is sure to raise questions and provoke conversation among readers all along the political spectrum.

Many thanks to Dey Street for gifting me an advance copy. All thoughts and opinions expressed here are entirely my own.

[Ginna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Accessible but not simple. Answered questions I didn’t know I had, revisited questions I felt I understood in greater depth, and discussed the way free speech has evolved to the present moment. I found the discussions of social media responsibility enlightening. After reading this book, I feel like I should do more to seek out a breadth of information sources on current events, so I’m embarking on a TV news watching adventure. We’ll see how it goes as election 2020 and NoFacebook November approach.

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely more of a manual than a philosophical defence of free speech. I definitely wouldn’t shy away from skipping sections or chapters on facets that you’re not interested in or don’t need to know about, for example some of the section about social media.

Beyond this, I think the author may err too much on the side of averting offends as opposed to staunchly defending free speech but some of the ideas discussed are useful for anyone seeking to reach wider audiences with written or spoken ideas as a lot is said about bridging divides between factions.

Overall, okay

[Deep Frey · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and timely read. Free speech has become a very political issue. The author gives a very balanced approach which pleased my middle leaning political sensibilities. I enjoyed the many anecdotes and chapter summaries.

[Allan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book like this could only be written within the United States’ last four chaotic, vindictive years, and we need it now most of all. It strikes an excellent balance between the opposing political and cultural forces clashing in our country, highlighting the dangers of some speech even as it lays the case for why most speech must be permitted. Several times I found my own bias twinging at an example or two Nossel selected to make a point, only to become assuaged when she segued that very same point to the side of the aisle toward which I lean. This is the remarkable thing about Dare to Speak: no matter whom you voted for, what color you are, or anything else - if you have an ounce of reason in you, this book will offer wisdom.

Most important concepts I brought from Dare to Speak:
- “Freedom of speech” means more than just the rights protected by the First Amendment; it’s a principle inseparable from a democratic and free society
- Any point of view may be expressed in such a society; if it’s harmful, then the most peaceful and thorough way to combat it is through persuasive opposing speech
- Some speech, although allowed, can cause real and lasting harm to people, some more than others; we all have a moral duty to phrase our speech with care and observe hurtful speech where it appears

[Samuel Longoria · Rating 3 out of 5]

started slow and was just telling you what you could say and not say. I thought give a chapter more, put it down, finally picked it up and it started giving some very good examples of people saying things that really should not be said but it also said that some things were not said as people took them. Certain words are not understood by everyone, people "THINK" they are something else. The word Niggardly is used as an example. A word that was used to mean stingy, as many will recall the DC Adie who used it to mean he would be stingy in dealing with financial issues. People, ignorant of the word, thought he used a racial slut and protested his hiring. He resigned. A very good man and great candidate had to be replaced because people thought he used the N word. I think that this books unintentionally pointed out cancel culture and the very weak minded people who are insulted by things and also points out that we have grown into a diverse culture (ethnically, sexually, and sociably) that we need to watch what we say and not defend one's statements by saying it was joke, or that is how it's always been. I also think we need to stand up to those who are protest certain words and say, you are wrong.