#1# Free Speech - Andrew Doyle

As we were discussing the outrances of our time, a friend recommended the reading of "Free speech and why it matters" by Andrew Doyle. I am usually quite busy reading few books in parallel and, then, did not really feel the urge to start another, however brilliant and interesting it could be. But something happened a couple of weeks ago in my workplace. Something which made me feel uncomfortable. Something unfair. Something which put me in a corner. And I could not really explain what it was but eventually found it intolerable. This led me towards the reading of this book. It is a clever and short (i like those!) piece on the current forces and trends which threaten our ability to think and share freely our thoughts in the intimacy of our house or in the public space. It is a quick read with short chapters in which key concepts are covered and illustrated with numerous relevant references and examples. Andrew Doyle warns us about the dangers of conformity and indolence which are easing up the way towards totalitarianism (phew! try to read it out loud!)

Reading is a personal experience, and what you get from it differs from individual to individual. 3 concepts resonated with me in particular:

Offence

Some people are sensitive to specific words or expressions in a negative way. They will choose to take the offence and sometimes without knowing whether the offence was intentional. At some point, it feels like people expect emotional and intellectual comfort, as if it was a right. Andrew Doyle is warning us: "when you believe that, you stop demanding freedom of speech and start demanding freedom from speech"

The self censoring artist

Arts are for me, like for so many people around the world, the ultimate freedom space. I would not be able to survive without being able to sing, write my thoughts or create whatever comes through my mind. then, it becomes absolutely frightening and utterly sad "once artists begin tailoring their work in accordance with how they sense it will be received" as "their craft is bound to deteriorate"

Words and violence

Does an insult justify a physical aggression? in the old days, the aristocracy was dealing with insult in a codified and well behaved manner: the offended had the choice of the weapon and in the mist of an early morning (at least this is how i romanticize the affair), the two gentilshommes, before the eyes of witnesses, were dueling to sort out the dispute. Only people from lower condition were resorting to raw and disordered violence to decide on the issue of a quarrel. Laws are now prohibiting duels, at least where the rule of law is in place, and the recourse to violence is prohibited, but we see around us some people claiming their right to violence as "words can be a form of violence" or that "ideas cause injury". "it has a sinister effect": "it means that inflicting physical harm on one's ideological opponents can be excused as a form of self-defense"

This concludes my first book review. I would be grateful if you could apologize the clumsiness of my writing as I am new to the exercise. I did it in the sake of sharing thoughts and in all modesty encourage you to switch off your screens and start reading a book of your choice. And eventually taste the sweetness of free thinking.