I’m going to start off by saying I am an ‘absolute free speech’ sceptic, which, to a certain extent, influences my opinions on the book. But, I picked this book up to be challenged, reflect on my views, and understand the viewpoint of absolute free speech supporters. Instead, all I got were incoherent arguments, hypocrisy, a lack of introspection and thinly veiled transphobia.

Firstly, the author makes blanket statements that are, in reality, highly geographically specific and west-centric. Not necessarily a fault, but as an Indian, it was interesting to read. The author claims that free speech has become a ‘right-wing issue’ and that it is the left that advocates for strict restrictions. As someone from a very right-wing nation, I find this strange and very anecdotal in nature (and then the author later goes on to criticise anecdotal reasoning, calling it a ‘fallacious form of reasoning!’ How wonderful?). Freedom of speech is a right-wing talking point, yes, but often to enable hateful rhetoric.

This is a good segue to start discussing this book’s strange opinions on hate speech. The author views the criminalisation of hate speech as both a dangerous present and our imminent future, which I find somewhat contradictory, but fine. Furthermore, UK laws (where the author is from) state very explicitly that hate speech is criminalised if one can prove in a court of law that its intent was to incite violence. It is not something that is flat-out criminalised, and I’d rather the book discuss the complications with what can be deemed to ‘have the intent of inciting violence.’ The very basis of the argument is an incorrect assumption or misunderstanding about hate speech legislation and its consequences.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_the_United_Kingdom https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-tracker/hate-crime-and-hate-speech-uk-government-action#whatweassessedintherecommendation]

This goes hand in hand with this weird belief that ‘speech is integral to the human spirit and hardly comparable with guns, knives and poison.’ No discussion on speech leading to violence? No discussion on how speech is used with material tools of harm? Alright. It feels weirdly belittling to write a whole book about the importance and power of speech and the wonderful benefits of dialogue — and then claim it cannot cause harm. Then, I wonder why dehumanisation through language, and propaganda are such powerful tools? The book called such a belief a ‘pessimistic leap of imagination,’ while the entire thesis of the book is that even a single restriction on offensive speech will lead to the complete loss of free speech altogether.

Let’s move on to the citations. One of the author’s claims is that there is an ‘overwhelming left-leaning bias among employees in big tech’ with no source. Another instance: ‘Those who insist that fascism has become normalised have a tendency to discard, or entirely misrepresent, statistics that do not reflect their pessimistic view.’ The citation / footnote directs one to: “A recent investigation into racism at UK universities by the Guardian gives us an example of how research can be interpreted to prove the opposite of what it reveals. Data collected from 131 universities demonstrated that from 2014 to 2019 there were 996 formal complaints of racism, of which 367 were upheld. This means that, on average, there were only 1.5 formal complaints of racism each year in any given institution, with only 73 upheld complaints among a university population that runs into the millions. The Guardian’s headline told a different story: ‘Revealed: the scale of racism at universities’. According to the article, the data constitutes ‘widespread evidence of discrimination’ and shows that racism in higher education is ‘endemic’. A follow-up comment piece declared that the study ‘demonstrates a lack of progress that borders on the obstinate’. In other words, a study whose findings conclusively prove that racism in universities is vanishingly rare was being taken as evidence of endemic racism. See David Batty, ‘UK universities condemned for failure to tackle racism’, the Guardian (5 July 2019) and Lola Okolosie, ‘No wonder UK universities are failing on racism – most don’t value diversity at all’, the Guardian (8 July 2019).”

Sorry, it’s very lengthy, but what does that even have to do with the statement? Besides, the study itself deals with only formal complaints and the ones that were upheld, which might not actually represent the prevalence of racism at campuses (which may include micro-aggressions and racism of a more casual yet pervasive nature). This isn’t the only instance of iffy citations in the 40 pages I read, but I’m a little too tired to add more.

This book’s criticism of cancel culture is beyond brittle. How can you defend the Neo-Nazis who wanted to march at Skokie, but draw the line at people who are, in all honesty, utilising their free speech in a far less egregious manner? The book uses Jon Ronson’s definition of cancel culture: 'Cancel culture’ is a shorthand metaphor for a retributive method of public shaming and boycotting, often for relatively minor mistakes or unfashionable opinions, which is typically driven by social media. It goes on to propose that “the practitioners of cancel culture habitually engage in what is known as ‘gaslighting’, a term which denotes the act of flatly contradicting observable reality. They smear their targets as ‘bullies’ as a means to bully them, or cast themselves in the role of victim while they victimise others. Often, this is achieved by claiming that they have been made to feel ‘unsafe’ or that ‘violence’ has been inflicted, which is usually enough to ensure that the target will lose his or her job.” It’s absurd. And guess who the book has chosen to champion this argument?

J.K. Rowling.

This book has constantly sympathised with blatant transphobes, going as far as to call Helen Lewis’ views on gender ‘nuanced and compassionate.’ What the hell dude? These people have been involved in legislation; they are the worst examples to choose if you believe that speech does not cause material harm.

[https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/topics/media/maya-forstater/ https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/topics/media/helen-lewis/ https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/topics/media/j-k-rowling/]

And my lovely friends, if you’ve had the patience to stay by my side for this long and witness a brief glimpse of my frustration, I’ve got a gift for all of you. “This is why a defence of free speech by a straight, white male is likely to be met with the objection that he is unqualified to apprehend the potential harm of words. But when the same arguments are advanced by a black lesbian, as they so often have been, there is nowhere left for the identity-fixated critic to retreat.”

I abdicate. Have a lovely day (シ_ _)シ