What do you think?
Rate this book
You Can't Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom
Winner of Polemic of the Year at the 2013 Political Book Awards.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of Communism, and the advent of the Web which allowed for even the smallest voice to be heard, everywhere you turned you were told that we were living in an age of unparalleled freedom.
You Can't Read This Book argues that this view is dangerously naive. From the revolution in Iran that wasn't, to the Great Firewall of China and the imposition of super-injunctions from the filthy rich protecting their privacy, the traditional opponents of freedom of speech — religious fanaticism, plutocratic power and dictatorial states — are thriving, and in many respects finding the world a more comfortable place in the early 21st century than they did in the late 20th.
This is not an account of interesting but trivial disputes about freedom of speech: the rights and wrongs of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, of playing heavy metal at 3 a.m. in a built-up area or articulating extremist ideas in a school or university. Rather, this is a story that starts with the cataclysmic reaction of the Left and Right to the publication and denunciation of The Satanic Verses in 1988 that saw them jump into bed with radical extremists. It ends at the juncture where even in the transgressive, liberated West, where so much blood had been spilt for Freedom, where rebellion is the conformist style and playing the dissenter the smart career move in the arts and media, you can write a book and end up destroyed or dead.
After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of Communism, and the advent of the Web which allowed for even the smallest voice to be heard, everywhere you turned you were told that we were living in an age of unparalleled freedom.
You Can't Read This Book argues that this view is dangerously naive. From the revolution in Iran that wasn't, to the Great Firewall of China and the imposition of super-injunctions from the filthy rich protecting their privacy, the traditional opponents of freedom of speech — religious fanaticism, plutocratic power and dictatorial states — are thriving, and in many respects finding the world a more comfortable place in the early 21st century than they did in the late 20th.
This is not an account of interesting but trivial disputes about freedom of speech: the rights and wrongs of shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, of playing heavy metal at 3 a.m. in a built-up area or articulating extremist ideas in a school or university. Rather, this is a story that starts with the cataclysmic reaction of the Left and Right to the publication and denunciation of The Satanic Verses in 1988 that saw them jump into bed with radical extremists. It ends at the juncture where even in the transgressive, liberated West, where so much blood had been spilt for Freedom, where rebellion is the conformist style and playing the dissenter the smart career move in the arts and media, you can write a book and end up destroyed or dead.
330 pages, Paperback
First published January 19, 2012
65 people are currently reading
1185 people want to read
About the author
Nick Cohen
17 books64 followersNick Cohen is a British journalist, author, and political commentator. He is currently a columnist for The Observer, a blogger for The Spectator and TV critic for Standpoint magazine. He formerly wrote for the London Evening Standard and the New Statesman. Cohen has written four books: Cruel Britannia: Reports on the Sinister and the Preposterous (1999), a collection of his journalism; Pretty Straight Guys (2003), a highly critical account of the New Labour project; What's Left? (2007), which he describes as the story of how the liberal left of the 20th century came to support the far right of the 21st; and Waiting for the Etonians: Reports from the Sickbed of Liberal England (2009). The Orwell Prize for political writing shortlisted What's Left? in 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews
March 27, 2012
Pretend With Me, Emo
I can't read this book (though I know I eventually will).
Nick Cohen, you only pretend to defend Free Speech.
You are not interested in fighting bad ideas with better ideas.
You are not interested in preventing harm, you're only interested in causing offence.
My Obsession is Not Your Obession
You are not opposed to racism, homophobia and misogyny.
You profess support for the opponents of these evils, only so far as is necessary to legitimate your assertion that, because they do not oppose other evils that you obsess about, their good faith is questionable.
You have your pet evils, and you fret when others don't accord them the same priority you do.
The Lefter of Two Evils
Your target is not evil, but the Left that you abandoned and that abandoned you (who cares who abandoned whom first).
You seek out issues and evils with the agenda of proving that your abandonment was justified.
You pick up your pedantic magnifying glass and you search out fault lines in the red brick facade of the Left.
You congratulate yourself when you find some fault line that proves that the Liberal Left is hypocritical.
You pry at its weakness and hope the whole tradition will collapse around you.
You await the occasion when you can run around proclaiming "I felled the Berlin Wall of Leftist Hypocrisy, I pulled it down, myself, brick by brick".
You believe that, if you turn your back on people who care (because they don't care enough), the people who don't care will care about you and your obsessions.
They will praise you and hold you aloft and reward your convenient acumen.
Epistle to Dr. Abut Not (On My Backyard)
Nick Cohen, you are no Swift, no Pope, you're a Patsy.
Your buzz might annoy the witty and the fair, yet beneath it all you're one who wit ne'er tastes, and beauty ne'er enjoys.
You stink and sting, you're a bug without gilded wings.
You're no butterfly, you're a moth that will be broken upon a wheel.
And you will have only yourself to blame, because you saw the wheel coming and you embraced it as if your life depended on it.
And so, in the end, you will be right that your life depended on the wheel.
I can't read this book (though I know I eventually will).
Nick Cohen, you only pretend to defend Free Speech.
You are not interested in fighting bad ideas with better ideas.
You are not interested in preventing harm, you're only interested in causing offence.
My Obsession is Not Your Obession
You are not opposed to racism, homophobia and misogyny.
You profess support for the opponents of these evils, only so far as is necessary to legitimate your assertion that, because they do not oppose other evils that you obsess about, their good faith is questionable.
You have your pet evils, and you fret when others don't accord them the same priority you do.
The Lefter of Two Evils
Your target is not evil, but the Left that you abandoned and that abandoned you (who cares who abandoned whom first).
You seek out issues and evils with the agenda of proving that your abandonment was justified.
You pick up your pedantic magnifying glass and you search out fault lines in the red brick facade of the Left.
You congratulate yourself when you find some fault line that proves that the Liberal Left is hypocritical.
You pry at its weakness and hope the whole tradition will collapse around you.
You await the occasion when you can run around proclaiming "I felled the Berlin Wall of Leftist Hypocrisy, I pulled it down, myself, brick by brick".
You believe that, if you turn your back on people who care (because they don't care enough), the people who don't care will care about you and your obsessions.
They will praise you and hold you aloft and reward your convenient acumen.
Epistle to Dr. Abut Not (On My Backyard)
Nick Cohen, you are no Swift, no Pope, you're a Patsy.
Your buzz might annoy the witty and the fair, yet beneath it all you're one who wit ne'er tastes, and beauty ne'er enjoys.
You stink and sting, you're a bug without gilded wings.
You're no butterfly, you're a moth that will be broken upon a wheel.
And you will have only yourself to blame, because you saw the wheel coming and you embraced it as if your life depended on it.
And so, in the end, you will be right that your life depended on the wheel.
June 28, 2013
An interesting book about censorship and free speech, which has a strong emphasis on British libel laws and the subsequent problems that people face when they go up against them.
Cohen uses some well known examples to clarify his points such as the backlash that Salman Rushdie experienced when he published The Satanic Verses, and how bankers were allowed to bring about the 2008 recession crisis because many whistleblowers were suppressed through the courts to keep their mouths shut.
There's also a good section on the pros and cons of free speech on the internet, and a brief advice section for citizens detailing what action they can take to become freer.
Cohen uses some well known examples to clarify his points such as the backlash that Salman Rushdie experienced when he published The Satanic Verses, and how bankers were allowed to bring about the 2008 recession crisis because many whistleblowers were suppressed through the courts to keep their mouths shut.
There's also a good section on the pros and cons of free speech on the internet, and a brief advice section for citizens detailing what action they can take to become freer.
May 15, 2012
A vital analysis of the state of the 'freedom' of expression in the 21st Century.
(If Goodreads did half stars I'd have plumped for 4.5, as there's the occasional rambling bout of verbal diarehea, but the book is definitely important and well written enough to be closer to a 5 than a 4)
(If Goodreads did half stars I'd have plumped for 4.5, as there's the occasional rambling bout of verbal diarehea, but the book is definitely important and well written enough to be closer to a 5 than a 4)
March 8, 2012
A very interesting read about how ideas about free speech have changed since the furore about the Satanic Verses. Cohen highlights some important concerns about the misuse libel law in England by the rich and powerful and the systematic yielding of ground, or failure to confront, extremist groups and viewpoints (threats), especially emanating from radical Islamic groups. He also, examines the implications for free speech in the Internet age. He highlights some stories I was aware of (Simon Singh), but many others of which I was not. One thought that occurred to me whilst reading is that Cohen does not satisfactorily explain the changing power relations within and between societies which encourage minorities to fight for rights and seek to extend them.
October 31, 2013
Yes, it's a 300-page rant on how freedom of speech is suppressed by fear, money and the law, but it's 300 pages of ranting that you wish you have the guts to say. It's a brave book to write and publish, seeing that Nick Cohen has written about the rise of Islamism, money politics, legal coercion, etc. A round of applause for this book!
May 16, 2012
Of course I will still miss Christopher Hitchens. But discovering Nick Cohen dulls the pain a little.
This is a damn fine book. Yessir, a damn fine book. Most people on either the left or the right who went to write such a book would give in to the temptation to mash buttons and score cheap shots at the expense of the 'other side'. Nick Cohen doesn't. He is scrupulously evenhanded in his political examples and although it is obvious his overall political and religious ideas are worlds away from mine, he is never offensively in my face about it.
I bet if that dill of a poet who gave a 1-star rating without reading the book went to the trouble of actually reading it, he would find the same thing. I bet. Go to it.
Nick Cohen is so polite for a good reason: he doesn't want to distract our attention from the common enemies of all people who believe in freedom of expression. Religious fundamentalists of every stripe; the enablers who call for their dangerous, wrong, and stupid ideas be 'respected'; despots; oligarchs; corporate tools; the unelected unrepresentative swill of the Renegade Mainland Provinces. All those people can get stuffed. Nick Cohen is not polite to them. Neither should we be.
This book is a call to be brave. It is a call to use our little grey cells. So get with it.
Any new idea, Mahound, is asked two questions.
The first is asked when it’s weak:
WHAT KIND OF AN IDEA ARE YOU?
Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive;
or are you the cursed, bloody-minded ramrod-backed type of damnfool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze?
- the kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, be smashed to bits;
but the hundredth time, will change the world?
What’s the second question? Gibreel asked.
Answer the first one first.
This is a damn fine book. Yessir, a damn fine book. Most people on either the left or the right who went to write such a book would give in to the temptation to mash buttons and score cheap shots at the expense of the 'other side'. Nick Cohen doesn't. He is scrupulously evenhanded in his political examples and although it is obvious his overall political and religious ideas are worlds away from mine, he is never offensively in my face about it.
I bet if that dill of a poet who gave a 1-star rating without reading the book went to the trouble of actually reading it, he would find the same thing. I bet. Go to it.
Nick Cohen is so polite for a good reason: he doesn't want to distract our attention from the common enemies of all people who believe in freedom of expression. Religious fundamentalists of every stripe; the enablers who call for their dangerous, wrong, and stupid ideas be 'respected'; despots; oligarchs; corporate tools; the unelected unrepresentative swill of the Renegade Mainland Provinces. All those people can get stuffed. Nick Cohen is not polite to them. Neither should we be.
This book is a call to be brave. It is a call to use our little grey cells. So get with it.
Any new idea, Mahound, is asked two questions.
The first is asked when it’s weak:
WHAT KIND OF AN IDEA ARE YOU?
Are you the kind that compromises, does deals, accommodates itself to society, aims to find a niche, to survive;
or are you the cursed, bloody-minded ramrod-backed type of damnfool notion that would rather break than sway with the breeze?
- the kind that will almost certainly, ninety-nine times out of a hundred, be smashed to bits;
but the hundredth time, will change the world?
What’s the second question? Gibreel asked.
Answer the first one first.
September 17, 2023
I feel that I'm far too young and have read far to few books to be able to review this one properly, but I'll do so anyway. With all the words and the "googeling" I had to do to be able to get the proper information about the background and the statements in this book, it was easy for me, as a 18-year-old, to sidetrack or drift of into the "what-if" and "could-this-happen-to-me"'s, it was hard to read, to keep track, or even relate (especially since I'm not living in UK), but the information and the thoughts of Nick Cohen makes it worth the pain. "Censorship" and "Freedom of Speech" nowadays are taken for granted in the first-world were living in, You Can't Read This Book, reminds us of the problems that exist and are ignored in our society today. It is absolute necessary to know and possess information of the existing problems which are ignored based on us having a good or bad day, if we're feeling "curious" today and decides to read a news article about some possible terror-action (not again) or what is wiki-leaks? We need just be aware of the existence of a problem. Even me, at such a young age, feel a responsibility just to know, and thus this book is perfect. Just to get an insight, just to be aware, and it's needed today. More people need to sit down on their fancy chairs and read this book.
August 4, 2014
Cohen's thoughts on the tool for repression and oppression that is censorship are progressive and compelling. He amply demonstrates that in undue privacy rights, the prohibition of criticism by reference to the personal, undeserved respect, lefty timidity, etc. lies the way to regression and inhibition.
For prospective readers of this book, which, contrary to the ironic title, you CAN read, here is the author's self-described summary:
1. The political isn't personal
2. The personal isn't political
3. Respect is the enemy of tolerance
4. If you're frightened, at least have the guts to say so
5. Once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane
6. If you have the chance to enact one law... (First amendment)
7. Democracy doesn't end at the office door
8. The wealthy have means enough to defend themselves, they don't need the law to add to them
9. Free-speaking societies are rare
10. Beware of anyone who begins a sentence with "There's no such thing as absolute free speech, so..."
11. Location, location, location
12. The Net cannot set you free (only politics can do that)
Cohen is a shining example of one who doesn't succumb to certain Western self-imposed norms that allow undeserving figures to exploit censorship (particularly English censorship) for personal gain, or non-Westerners to invoke tradition in order perpetuate outdated conventions with which minorities and the like can be oppressed.
For prospective readers of this book, which, contrary to the ironic title, you CAN read, here is the author's self-described summary:
1. The political isn't personal
2. The personal isn't political
3. Respect is the enemy of tolerance
4. If you're frightened, at least have the guts to say so
5. Once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane
6. If you have the chance to enact one law... (First amendment)
7. Democracy doesn't end at the office door
8. The wealthy have means enough to defend themselves, they don't need the law to add to them
9. Free-speaking societies are rare
10. Beware of anyone who begins a sentence with "There's no such thing as absolute free speech, so..."
11. Location, location, location
12. The Net cannot set you free (only politics can do that)
Cohen is a shining example of one who doesn't succumb to certain Western self-imposed norms that allow undeserving figures to exploit censorship (particularly English censorship) for personal gain, or non-Westerners to invoke tradition in order perpetuate outdated conventions with which minorities and the like can be oppressed.
July 9, 2016
4.5/5 - Firstly, i m surprised that this book has been called a 'polemic'. It is a balanced, reasonable account of how censorship works in our times. While every1 knows about how criticism of Islam is silenced, the author's observations still make for interesting, insightful reading. Loved the chapter on MF Hussain which tried to document how majoritarianism, while much milder also imitates it. I have read polemics on d subject and hv enjoyed them too and so I think I would have recognised one.
The second section was on 'plutocrats' and the power of money and the English libel law to silence critics. This was mostly new to me and extremely interesting. Both in terms of background info and d actual subject.
The third and final section discusses on how Internet changes the flow of information - both for better and d worse - and how most authoritarian regimes have successfully adapted to it and spoilt d utopian dream of having a liberal democratic world.
The motto - Defending liberty and freedom of speech cannot be done only in d virtual world and requires a courageous effort in d physical world too. The ability to risk physical harm, financial harm or both. No crown without cross !
The second section was on 'plutocrats' and the power of money and the English libel law to silence critics. This was mostly new to me and extremely interesting. Both in terms of background info and d actual subject.
The third and final section discusses on how Internet changes the flow of information - both for better and d worse - and how most authoritarian regimes have successfully adapted to it and spoilt d utopian dream of having a liberal democratic world.
The motto - Defending liberty and freedom of speech cannot be done only in d virtual world and requires a courageous effort in d physical world too. The ability to risk physical harm, financial harm or both. No crown without cross !
October 1, 2013
Persevere with this book! I like his newspaper columns and I tend to find myself siding with Nick Cohen when he’s having any kind of debate, so I thought I’d enjoy this read. Unfortunately I had to force myself to read this book for about the first third of it – a lot of things about it annoyed me. It had the feel of extended newspaper columns strung together, it felt unstructured, he spends the first three chapters talking about Salman Rushdie (who has his place in religious history, but I’m sure his position has been raked over many times before this book), he sometimes misses quite obvious points and his text is quite often example led rather than argument led, so that I didn’t really know what his point was whilst reading.
However, it does ask some difficult questions and brings up many points I hadn’t heard before regarding libel law, Internet rights, blasphemy law and the hierarchy of businesses. For example, the very important role that libel law played in the financial crisis in Iceland. It’s not the most neatly put together book, but it told a lot of harsh truths.
However, it does ask some difficult questions and brings up many points I hadn’t heard before regarding libel law, Internet rights, blasphemy law and the hierarchy of businesses. For example, the very important role that libel law played in the financial crisis in Iceland. It’s not the most neatly put together book, but it told a lot of harsh truths.
April 11, 2013
Nick Cohen is a fine polemicist, with a strong liberal outlook, and in this books, he considers if the internet has made us freer on not.
And he concludes not. In reaching this conclusion he looks at the religious persecution that is administered from the smallest thing said or written, looks at the way the global elite use their massive wealth to keep the general public in place, and political leaders in check, and the UK libel law to suppress all manner of truths. He then goes onto look at the new dictatorships around the world, that can be utterly brutal in keeping their populace in control.
At the end he makes a short series of suggestions that democratic governments need to implement to improve freedom of speech, including wholesale revision of UK libel law, which has been condemned by the Un of all people.
And he concludes not. In reaching this conclusion he looks at the religious persecution that is administered from the smallest thing said or written, looks at the way the global elite use their massive wealth to keep the general public in place, and political leaders in check, and the UK libel law to suppress all manner of truths. He then goes onto look at the new dictatorships around the world, that can be utterly brutal in keeping their populace in control.
At the end he makes a short series of suggestions that democratic governments need to implement to improve freedom of speech, including wholesale revision of UK libel law, which has been condemned by the Un of all people.
July 10, 2012
Sometimes challenging polemic, the subtlety of self censorship perhaps the most important idea, that the liberal minded approach to avoiding confrontation actually supports censorship. He emphaisise how important it is to defend the right to have whatever opinion you want, and to express it.
June 28, 2013
ساعدني على خفض سقف توقعاتي من التقنية بعرض فرضيات وأمثلة واقعية تؤكد على أن الجيل الحالي يعلق آمال كبيرة على التقنية وعلاقتها بالحضارة والحرية، بينما يغفل عن جوانب كثيرة تؤكد على ان هذا قد يكون سرابا".. ممتع
October 19, 2014
At the time of writing this, the Turkish leader Erdogan is clamping down on access to Twitter, Facebook and YouTube, modern "apples of knowledge" which he presumably fears are undermining his authority. Yet, if you regard the UK as a bastion of free expression, Nick Cohen will undermine your complacency.
Organising his material under the main heading of "God", "Money" and "State", Cohen moves from the ayatollah-supported death threats against Salman Rushdie, who dared to use fiction as a tool to satirise certain aspects of Islam, through the suppression of whistle-blowers who would have forewarned us of the recent Icelandic banking collapse foreshadowing those in the US and Britain, to the illusion that the web will sound the death knell of censorship in repressive regimes - the latter may become yet more successful by using technology to track down and crush opposition.
The author's subjective and polemical style often seems more suited to disillusioned-with-the-left-and-liberals popular journalism than a book in which one hopes to find balanced analysis. For instance, he describes British judges as being drawn from "the pseudo-liberal upper-middle class who have no instinctive respect for freedom of speech or gut understanding of its importance". Then there is his repeated attack on Western radicals who "either dismiss crimes committed by anti-Western forces as the inventions of Western propagandists or excuse them as the inevitable if regrettably blood-spattered consequences of Western provocation. The narcissism behind their reasoning is too glaring to waste time on". But Nick Cohen has found time to expand on the crimes of Charles Manson and Roman Polanski, salacious digressions from his main point, in this case to expose the excessive protection offered by British courts to those, often foreigners, rich enough to buy protection from criticism by exploiting libel laws and hiding behind super-injunctions.
Cohen seems particularly exercised by the Western liberals who appear to him to have put more emphasis on respecting Islam than on protecting the rights of individuals like Rushdie to freedom of expression. Although I tend to agree with Cohen's views, I was disappointed that he did not show more understanding over people's very understandable fear of losing their lives, or those of their loved ones, if they dare to take a stand. I was also troubled by his apparently somewhat partisan attitude to the rights of Israel, and lack of an at least even-handed examination of the role of Wikileaks overall.
This book covers important themes, it provides telling examples for those too young to have read about them in the press, but I had hoped for a more objective style together with a more systematic and synthesized approach to defining and discussing censorship, made all the more necessary by the inevitable "dating" of this kind of book, which, for instance, misses out on the potential debate over the role of Edward Snowden.
Quotations from some of the pioneers of tolerant thought make some of the best points, like Jefferson who wrote in 1776 with timeless clarity: "no man shall be compelled to support any religious worship.. nor suffer on account of his beliefs....but ...all men shall be free by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of Religion."
Yet, of course, apart from the lack of specific reference to women, at the time, Jefferson still owned slaves........
Organising his material under the main heading of "God", "Money" and "State", Cohen moves from the ayatollah-supported death threats against Salman Rushdie, who dared to use fiction as a tool to satirise certain aspects of Islam, through the suppression of whistle-blowers who would have forewarned us of the recent Icelandic banking collapse foreshadowing those in the US and Britain, to the illusion that the web will sound the death knell of censorship in repressive regimes - the latter may become yet more successful by using technology to track down and crush opposition.
The author's subjective and polemical style often seems more suited to disillusioned-with-the-left-and-liberals popular journalism than a book in which one hopes to find balanced analysis. For instance, he describes British judges as being drawn from "the pseudo-liberal upper-middle class who have no instinctive respect for freedom of speech or gut understanding of its importance". Then there is his repeated attack on Western radicals who "either dismiss crimes committed by anti-Western forces as the inventions of Western propagandists or excuse them as the inevitable if regrettably blood-spattered consequences of Western provocation. The narcissism behind their reasoning is too glaring to waste time on". But Nick Cohen has found time to expand on the crimes of Charles Manson and Roman Polanski, salacious digressions from his main point, in this case to expose the excessive protection offered by British courts to those, often foreigners, rich enough to buy protection from criticism by exploiting libel laws and hiding behind super-injunctions.
Cohen seems particularly exercised by the Western liberals who appear to him to have put more emphasis on respecting Islam than on protecting the rights of individuals like Rushdie to freedom of expression. Although I tend to agree with Cohen's views, I was disappointed that he did not show more understanding over people's very understandable fear of losing their lives, or those of their loved ones, if they dare to take a stand. I was also troubled by his apparently somewhat partisan attitude to the rights of Israel, and lack of an at least even-handed examination of the role of Wikileaks overall.
This book covers important themes, it provides telling examples for those too young to have read about them in the press, but I had hoped for a more objective style together with a more systematic and synthesized approach to defining and discussing censorship, made all the more necessary by the inevitable "dating" of this kind of book, which, for instance, misses out on the potential debate over the role of Edward Snowden.
Quotations from some of the pioneers of tolerant thought make some of the best points, like Jefferson who wrote in 1776 with timeless clarity: "no man shall be compelled to support any religious worship.. nor suffer on account of his beliefs....but ...all men shall be free by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of Religion."
Yet, of course, apart from the lack of specific reference to women, at the time, Jefferson still owned slaves........
February 20, 2015
The likening of Nick Cohen to the great Christopher Hitchens made this title leap out at me. Cohen didn’t disappoint. The attacks on Charlie Hebdo occurred midway through reading “You Can’t Read this Book” and brought the importance of a modern polemic, challenging the 21st century concept of ‘freedom of speech’, into sickening clarity. Expecting an Orwellian style attack on state suppression of free speech, instead I found Cohen asking what it meant to truly believe in freedom of speech. At what cost? Against how much violence? And to what personal loss would we hold strong and refuse to ‘self censor’? In the opening section, Cohen concentrates on religious censorship. Cohen’s insight and attack on the liberal left was relevant and highly topical. A liberal left and intelligentsia who have quietly betrayed their principles for the sake of safety - safety from the genuine threat (Paris was a brutal reminder) of lethal violence to themselves and their family from religious extremists. An easy line to agree with, but how many of us would print a Charlie cartoon in the days following the Paris attacks? How many of us would save ourselves and family and self-censor? Two years prior to the hypocrisy of western leaders marching united against suppression of expression following the Paris attacks, Cohen asked these questions of society, his fellow journalists and the reader with an understanding undertone but a cold sense of irony.
The following two sections continue to challenge our common and self-asserted belief in freedom of speech. Do we still believe freedom of speech in the context of our livelihoods and wealth? Would you speak out against your corrupt employer if doing so guaranteed an end to your career and possibly your livelihood? What if you were a publisher speaking out against a Russian oligarch? Publication would ensure years of lengthy and financially ruinous libel cases. Whilst not as emotively stirring as the “God” section, Cohen’s analysis of the UK libel laws and corporate culture is eye opening.
Finally - the internet, the great liberator of the people. Or is it? Comparing the internet to the last great technological liberator of expression and thus by utopian definition the ‘people’, Cohen makes it clear that technology and the internet alone cannot set us free. The absolute monarchy and violent oppression of the 17th and 18th centuries following the invention of the Gutenberg Press should, Cohen argues, stand as a warning to us. Freedom of speech and expression is not a guaranteed result of the internet or any other technology alone; further still, to naively believe so plays into the hands of the oppressor. The same liberating technology can just as easily, and perhaps even more effectively, be used as a tool of oppression. In possibly the most sinister line in the book, this warning is made with spine-chilling clarity: “For there is one prediction about the next decade that one can make with certainty: after watching the protests from the Belarus flash mobs to the Arab spring, no dictatorship will make the mistake of ignoring social networking again.”
The following two sections continue to challenge our common and self-asserted belief in freedom of speech. Do we still believe freedom of speech in the context of our livelihoods and wealth? Would you speak out against your corrupt employer if doing so guaranteed an end to your career and possibly your livelihood? What if you were a publisher speaking out against a Russian oligarch? Publication would ensure years of lengthy and financially ruinous libel cases. Whilst not as emotively stirring as the “God” section, Cohen’s analysis of the UK libel laws and corporate culture is eye opening.
Finally - the internet, the great liberator of the people. Or is it? Comparing the internet to the last great technological liberator of expression and thus by utopian definition the ‘people’, Cohen makes it clear that technology and the internet alone cannot set us free. The absolute monarchy and violent oppression of the 17th and 18th centuries following the invention of the Gutenberg Press should, Cohen argues, stand as a warning to us. Freedom of speech and expression is not a guaranteed result of the internet or any other technology alone; further still, to naively believe so plays into the hands of the oppressor. The same liberating technology can just as easily, and perhaps even more effectively, be used as a tool of oppression. In possibly the most sinister line in the book, this warning is made with spine-chilling clarity: “For there is one prediction about the next decade that one can make with certainty: after watching the protests from the Belarus flash mobs to the Arab spring, no dictatorship will make the mistake of ignoring social networking again.”
March 28, 2014
The book challenges the reader whether they *truly* believe in free speech. The freedom to speak out is taken for granted in the western world, and one of the things that terrorists supposedly hate us for. Yet often free speech is something we pay lip service to, and seldom stand up for it when it counts. Freedom of speech (and thus freedom of conscience) is one of the great gifts of the enlightenment, yet where are its defenders?
The modern version of the loss of free speech often devolves into discussion of the nanny state. Censorship for our own good. Yet this book doesn't focus on that. Rather it focuses on explicit and implicit censorship done in the name of religion, money, and state. The success of censorship tactics isn't just preventing dissenting voices from being heard, but putting enough fear into people that they will willingly withhold their voice. In the case of religion, it meant that people would not dare to publish critiques of Islam. When it came to corporations, potential whistleblowers would fear for their own future livelihoods, or journalists being sued for libel in the UK. And when it came to state, the fear is inadvertently becoming a target by speaking out.
The point with censorship at each point in the Internet age is the same. Powerful groups will use their power to maintain that power when they can.
One of the tragedies the book kept highlighting was the liberal acquiescence on matters of free speech. Free speech fits comfortably into the liberal political discourse, but unfortunately has been eroded by moves towards relativism. Cohen calls it for what it is - racism, where freedom of speech is just fine for us white folk, but it's cultural oppression for anyone else. He brilliantly exposes the double standards of liberal commentators when Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke out in the Netherlands, just as liberal commentators in the UK the previous decades when Salman Rushie drew the ire of Islamic fascists. That people cannot stand up for freedom of expression.
The brilliance of the book is that it's not only a sociological look at particular instances (including the harrowing examples of the global financial crisis and details of Roman Polanski's abominable sex crimes), but drew specific lessons for the reader to be wary of. And perhaps after venting so much moral outrage, his closing chapter on how to fight back gave at least a glimmer of hope.
Everyone should read this book precisely because free speech is so important, and Cohen's sharp polemic is the rallying call free speech needs. We should do more than pay lip service to free speech, it's a vital part of our well being, and the book is full of cautionary tales of how easily it can be whittled away - and how devastating that can be.
The modern version of the loss of free speech often devolves into discussion of the nanny state. Censorship for our own good. Yet this book doesn't focus on that. Rather it focuses on explicit and implicit censorship done in the name of religion, money, and state. The success of censorship tactics isn't just preventing dissenting voices from being heard, but putting enough fear into people that they will willingly withhold their voice. In the case of religion, it meant that people would not dare to publish critiques of Islam. When it came to corporations, potential whistleblowers would fear for their own future livelihoods, or journalists being sued for libel in the UK. And when it came to state, the fear is inadvertently becoming a target by speaking out.
The point with censorship at each point in the Internet age is the same. Powerful groups will use their power to maintain that power when they can.
One of the tragedies the book kept highlighting was the liberal acquiescence on matters of free speech. Free speech fits comfortably into the liberal political discourse, but unfortunately has been eroded by moves towards relativism. Cohen calls it for what it is - racism, where freedom of speech is just fine for us white folk, but it's cultural oppression for anyone else. He brilliantly exposes the double standards of liberal commentators when Ayaan Hirsi Ali spoke out in the Netherlands, just as liberal commentators in the UK the previous decades when Salman Rushie drew the ire of Islamic fascists. That people cannot stand up for freedom of expression.
The brilliance of the book is that it's not only a sociological look at particular instances (including the harrowing examples of the global financial crisis and details of Roman Polanski's abominable sex crimes), but drew specific lessons for the reader to be wary of. And perhaps after venting so much moral outrage, his closing chapter on how to fight back gave at least a glimmer of hope.
Everyone should read this book precisely because free speech is so important, and Cohen's sharp polemic is the rallying call free speech needs. We should do more than pay lip service to free speech, it's a vital part of our well being, and the book is full of cautionary tales of how easily it can be whittled away - and how devastating that can be.
May 5, 2016
An eye opener in a sense for anyone who thinks that in the 21st Century we are being blessed with 'free speech' and freedom of thought. The oppressive regimes still functions the same way and the democratic countries, instead of being liberal are more and more leaning towards censorship. The clarity of thought of the author has to be applauded. He has covered all grounds regarding free speech, libel laws in England, the Salman Rushdie affair & other attacks on free speech / expressions, rise of Islamic forces, blasphemy laws, religious bigotry, timid journalism, clout of oligarchs & other powerful persons / corporations. The influence of George Orwell is to be felt all over the book. The dystopian scenario imagined by Orwell is compared with the current scenarios. Gets a tad longer and hence loses steam in the latter part. But the quality of arguments, thoughts and most importantly the prose was superb.
July 31, 2012
Best book that I have read in a long time. They think it's all over - well, it isn't, and this book shows why. Essential reading.
March 3, 2015
Fantastic.
December 23, 2022
This is a dense and sometimes boring book worth sticking with.
Nick kicks off by delving into the Rushdie affair. I started reading this book some months back, so it happened that when Salman Rushdie was mutilated by a Shiite terrorist thirty-four years after publishing The Satanic Verses, I had just read the chapters on the pervading self-censorship that followed the Rushdie affair. Many brave and principled people stood by the principle that free speech means being able to criticize and mock religion, even in bad taste, and some died for it. Far more people were cowards who criticized Rushdie himself, including slimy figures like archbishops of the Church of England and Prince Charles (united as common beneficiaries of censorship).
One very useful way in which people can be divided, I think, is between those who value liberty and those who do not understand it. The difference is tolerance, and understanding the importance of your opponents' own liberty. I do not know how well this book might reach over the divide, because I am fiercely liberal and do not require convincing to believe that freedom is important.
However, Nick succeeded in convincing me that Wikileaks as an organisation and Julian Assange both are charlatans who probably cost the lives of many true liberals and dissenters living in dictatorships, and that I had been naive for supporting either, which makes for an inversion of my once strong support. I became suspicious when Wikileaks nakedly attempted to frame the US as instigators of the Russias-Ukraine war, and two prominent supporters of Wikileaks, Roger Waters and Noam Chomsky, both inexplicably took the side of Russia in a conflict that had an unambiguous 'bad' side who were aggressors and systematic war criminals. Nine years' presciently, Nick understands the cause:
History of course proved Nick very wrong that Assange was paranoid to fear extradition to the US, and it is not a particularly more nuanced position to take that even as a bad-faith actor, the law should protect him from incorrect prosecution, and the US interest in him should be treated with suspicion. On that point, Nick's mental gymnastics continue as he discusses extraordinary rendition, CIA black sites, and the US black civil rights movement. Surely he is aware of the FBI's attempts to kill Martin Luther King. Nick should be even more embarrassed by the recent expose that Mike Pompeo and the CIA made plans to kill Julian Assange in London, yet he still made the laughable comparison that:
I summarize Nick's most important points like so:
* Free speech should be limited based only on Mill's harm principle.
* British libel law is a bad thing that most often protects the powerful (Limited reform did follow the publication of this book, but the power remains in the hands of those who can afford to litigate honestly or dishonestly, and the burden of proof remains with the defendant who is guilty until proven innocent.)
* Respect is the enemy of tolerance. (In Nick's own words.) So-called 'respect' is too-often a demand backed by fear and oppression, and in all cases, when given it makes for a totalitarian society. Truly bad ideas will not stand up against good ideas, and so we need not censor bad ideas, and those who believe they stand for good ideas do not need censorship to protect them.
Nick kicks off by delving into the Rushdie affair. I started reading this book some months back, so it happened that when Salman Rushdie was mutilated by a Shiite terrorist thirty-four years after publishing The Satanic Verses, I had just read the chapters on the pervading self-censorship that followed the Rushdie affair. Many brave and principled people stood by the principle that free speech means being able to criticize and mock religion, even in bad taste, and some died for it. Far more people were cowards who criticized Rushdie himself, including slimy figures like archbishops of the Church of England and Prince Charles (united as common beneficiaries of censorship).
One very useful way in which people can be divided, I think, is between those who value liberty and those who do not understand it. The difference is tolerance, and understanding the importance of your opponents' own liberty. I do not know how well this book might reach over the divide, because I am fiercely liberal and do not require convincing to believe that freedom is important.
However, Nick succeeded in convincing me that Wikileaks as an organisation and Julian Assange both are charlatans who probably cost the lives of many true liberals and dissenters living in dictatorships, and that I had been naive for supporting either, which makes for an inversion of my once strong support. I became suspicious when Wikileaks nakedly attempted to frame the US as instigators of the Russias-Ukraine war, and two prominent supporters of Wikileaks, Roger Waters and Noam Chomsky, both inexplicably took the side of Russia in a conflict that had an unambiguous 'bad' side who were aggressors and systematic war criminals. Nine years' presciently, Nick understands the cause:
Because they believe the real enemy is at home, Western radicals ignore the victims of dictatorial states and movements, and provide excuses for their oppressors. They see dissidents in countries like Belarus as tainted, because their sufferings cannot be blamed on the West. At their worst, Western leftists will follow through the logic of their position and collaborate with the oppressors.
History of course proved Nick very wrong that Assange was paranoid to fear extradition to the US, and it is not a particularly more nuanced position to take that even as a bad-faith actor, the law should protect him from incorrect prosecution, and the US interest in him should be treated with suspicion. On that point, Nick's mental gymnastics continue as he discusses extraordinary rendition, CIA black sites, and the US black civil rights movement. Surely he is aware of the FBI's attempts to kill Martin Luther King. Nick should be even more embarrassed by the recent expose that Mike Pompeo and the CIA made plans to kill Julian Assange in London, yet he still made the laughable comparison that:
If you steal hundreds of thousands of documents from the Russian state and put them online, the FSB will try and kill you. Steal American secrets, and the CIA will not.
I summarize Nick's most important points like so:
* Free speech should be limited based only on Mill's harm principle.
* British libel law is a bad thing that most often protects the powerful (Limited reform did follow the publication of this book, but the power remains in the hands of those who can afford to litigate honestly or dishonestly, and the burden of proof remains with the defendant who is guilty until proven innocent.)
* Respect is the enemy of tolerance. (In Nick's own words.) So-called 'respect' is too-often a demand backed by fear and oppression, and in all cases, when given it makes for a totalitarian society. Truly bad ideas will not stand up against good ideas, and so we need not censor bad ideas, and those who believe they stand for good ideas do not need censorship to protect them.
January 16, 2016
A powerfully written polemic in favour of Mill's definition of freedom of speech and the first amendment. There is much in here to challenge the tendancy of modern "liberalism" to ban and silence rather than expose and debate. This stands aside more mainstream examples of battles for free speech against corporate or state power. The examples are largely well known - chiropractice and Simon Singh, The Satanic Verses etc. The case is strongly made. Though for me, I felt it lacked an answer to the hardest question - what about the person who is wrong and (potentially) dangerously so but where there is no direct incitement? What about the Andrew Wakefields of this world?
August 26, 2014
I read the Kindle edition of this book.
This book is a bit cynical, but realistic. It is not even trying to be unbiased. 'This is what I think of censorship and who practices it and why' is the theme of the book. It gives lots of great examples of how it is used and by whom, but by the end of it you've heard it all before, just in slight variations. People in power want to stay in power and they use censorship to achieve that goal. True, certainly, but hardly news. The insight into how it is done is worth reading it for, but there aren't too many startling revelations, that's for sure.
This book is a bit cynical, but realistic. It is not even trying to be unbiased. 'This is what I think of censorship and who practices it and why' is the theme of the book. It gives lots of great examples of how it is used and by whom, but by the end of it you've heard it all before, just in slight variations. People in power want to stay in power and they use censorship to achieve that goal. True, certainly, but hardly news. The insight into how it is done is worth reading it for, but there aren't too many startling revelations, that's for sure.
August 20, 2015
Quite a scary book, which puts on a plate in front of the reader just how censorial our societies are. Nobody ought have the authority to dictate what one can or cannot publish, just because it may not agree with their personal views - but, this notwithstanding, this baseless censorship happens. Cohen states a lot of instances in which this unjust behaviour is observable, and most of the time religion or business has a part to play.
August 25, 2012
4.5 really. Not a 5 only because he was looking at 3 different ways in which ideas are now censored and didn't pull the 3 together. That's a small point. Cohen is a man of the left who sees the damage done by a woolly liberalism which tolerates the intolerable and congratulates itself on doing so.
February 26, 2016
I like to read Nick Cohen's newspaper column, and I likde very much his book What's Left?. I think his is a sensible voice in a not usually sensible press in not that much sensible times. I totally agree with his views about the loony left and the present day censure, which he exposes so well in the cases of religion, the workplace and the state. A very good read.
September 15, 2012
This book is interesting and important piece of polemic.
Cohen is methodical and exact in his criticsm, he spares few things and whilst at times i disagreed with his views i cherished the fact that he wrote them. People should read this to realise what is actually happening in the world.
Cohen is methodical and exact in his criticsm, he spares few things and whilst at times i disagreed with his views i cherished the fact that he wrote them. People should read this to realise what is actually happening in the world.
September 13, 2013
I bought this book after going round the British Library's excellent exhibition, Propaganda. I am not disappointed. Preserving free speech is vital to any democracy, and Cohen illustrates - sometimes painfully - the liberal retreat, and the rise of censorship
May 20, 2015
Truly amazing book. Nick has a razor sharp chain of arguments throughout the book, but especially the first part onreligious censorship, totalitarianism, genocide and freedom on speech is highly recommended.
June 27, 2015
An exact polemic well justified by concrete evidence of the forces acting against free speech: God, Money and the State. Liked the vehemence enacted on the outrageous hypocrisy of the modern state. Perhaps censorship hasn't really gone; it's just never publicised.
March 7, 2012
Everyone should read this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 59 reviews