The idea that government should dictate the parameters of debate and declare certain ideas a priory, off limits, a prosecutable offence is problematic. We have to defend people that say things that we think are wrong, or else we won't know if we're wrong. And so i've a strong bias toward our own first amendment system where that power is denied. It's about repressing narratives that undercut and official account of events.
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: Defending Free Speech for All, 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.
Shermer and Nossel discuss: private vs. government restrictions on speech; hate speech, libel, slander, compelled speech; incitement to violence and insurrection; cancel culture; social media censorship; the euphemism treadmill, and more…