Kirkus Reviews QR Code
DARE TO SPEAK by Suzanne Nossel

DARE TO SPEAK

Defending Free Speech for All

by Suzanne Nossel

Pub Date: May 5th, 2020
ISBN: 978-0-06-296603-2
Publisher: Dey Street/HarperCollins

The CEO of PEN America suggests how to protect free speech in a digital age.

As Nossel notes in her debut book, Herbert Marcuse argued that “creating a broadly tolerant society demands intolerance of certain ideas, including right-wing ideologies.” With far-right extremism on the rise, his view is making a comeback, writes the author, and she rebuts it in a defense of free speech that alternately hits the mark and wanders far afield from First Amendment issues, dealing instead with cultural insensitivity or noninclusive language. In much of the first half, Nossel serves up unedifying bromides on how to respond to “unintended offenses” such as stereotyping millennials as “snowflakes” or “asking a fellow party guest if she’s pregnant when she isn’t.” The narrative gains traction when the author addresses urgent questions such as how to protect free speech while responding effectively to harmful material like online revenge porn, terrorist recruitment, and deepfake videos. Nossel, who has also served as the COO of Human Rights Watch, shows in chilling detail how tech companies are failing to moderate content appropriately. Google and Facebook, for example, “demote problematic posts, limiting how often they are seen without excising them entirely,” or “shadow ban” them by “suppressing social media users so that, unbeknownst to them, their posts and content cannot be seen by others.” The social media giants must become more transparent, argues Nossel, partly by notifying users promptly if they face sanctions. Throughout the book, the author argues persuasively that “informal self-governance” protects free speech better than corporate or government restrictions, but after reading her accounts of abuses by Silicon Valley behemoths, few readers are likely to disagree with one of her conclusions: “Mandated transparency is one area where government regulation of online content may be a positive step and would not entail intrusions on content in violation of the First Amendment.”

Apt and inapt arguments commingle in a passionate defense of free speech.