Scan barcode
sam2085's review against another edition
4.0
A necessary book that appropriately reasserts the value of freedom of speech in our democratic society.
The book could have benefited from switching the conclusion chapter to the start, thereby beginning with the reasons why the author decided to write.
Some of the arguments were repetitious, and forty pages likely could have been removed without harming the points made.
I recommend for all who want to engage with the foundational pillars of our democracy.
The book could have benefited from switching the conclusion chapter to the start, thereby beginning with the reasons why the author decided to write.
Some of the arguments were repetitious, and forty pages likely could have been removed without harming the points made.
I recommend for all who want to engage with the foundational pillars of our democracy.
martieb's review against another edition
informative
medium-paced
2.75
Some good points, some bad points, sometimes I feel she's not very precise in her arguments (ex: people being accused of a crime and people being convicted of a crime are two different things, lumping them together to advance one's cause isn't peak intellectual honesty), and the fact that if you want to review *any* citation you need to go on a webpage isn't the easiest way to use this book for academic purposes.
lucidstyle's review against another edition
4.0
informative read though difficult due to the intensity of legal information and its result on me which is to tie my brain up and work really hard to understand, or fall asleep trying. A good read nonetheless and an important topic, one that today needs a revisit. I can certainly understand that hate speech should be free, that speech shan't be judged and must be expressed by all in a democratic society. I wonder though how we approach what we see so rampantly today (2020): disinformation, which does feel oppressive and abusive. Are lies free speech?
And the thing about imminent, physical harm. "Sticks and stones may break my bones..." Yeah, that is an important precedent. I'm not sure the last word's been said on this; the postulation yet feels incomplete. We have more to uncover about the depth of harm and damage caused by "words." Whether those words are spoken hatefully or altered and laced with falsehood in order to manipulate a people, it is a wrongful act.
And the thing about imminent, physical harm. "Sticks and stones may break my bones..." Yeah, that is an important precedent. I'm not sure the last word's been said on this; the postulation yet feels incomplete. We have more to uncover about the depth of harm and damage caused by "words." Whether those words are spoken hatefully or altered and laced with falsehood in order to manipulate a people, it is a wrongful act.
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
I’m half black, and when I think about people being able to fling around racial slurs all willy nilly, every fiber of my being wants there to be censored speech. I think rationally, I (and most people) know that censorship is a very bad idea. This is why I like to read books from people arguing for free speech, and I’m so glad I picked up this book from Nadine Strossen. At times, the book gets a little too much into legal jargon for me, but it’s rare. Strossen has been advocating for free speech for a long time and knows the laws surrounding free speech inside and out. Aside from that, she knows about how censorship has worked in other countries as well as a ton of well-cited psychological research. What I love about this book is that you can tell that much like most of us, Strossen hates hate speech, but she argues (very well) that censorship is not the answer. I challenge anyone to read this book cover to cover and think censorship is a good idea.
amlagunas's review against another edition
3.0
Really liked the points she made and the examples and quotes. Some things I already agreed with, some things new to me. However, it could be a little hard to read. I feel like a law background would have helped in the first third, and the middle third felt very repetitive. Last third was better, though, I'd say chapter 7 was particularly more clear.
jackiekeating's review against another edition
3.0
1 star for the dry, repetitive writing but 5 stars for the really important and well thought out message.
pawsreadrepeat's review against another edition
5.0
This comprehensive book discusses the pros and cons of limiting speech, simply because we do not agree with it. What I enjoyed most was learning why censoring some speech but not others damages our democracy. I also learned the importance of civil discourse in a diverse society, why it is important, and that our society needs to engage at this level to improve the human condition for all people.