Introduction
In "You Can't Read This Book," journalist Nick Cohen explores the state of free speech and censorship in the modern world. Despite living in an era of unprecedented access to information and communication, Cohen argues that freedom of expression is under threat from multiple directions. Through examining case studies and global trends, he reveals how governments, corporations, religious extremists, and even well-meaning liberals are all contributing to a climate where speaking freely carries increasing risks.
Cohen's central thesis is that while we may believe we live in an age of expanding freedoms, powerful forces are working to silence dissenting voices and control the flow of information. From violent reactions to perceived blasphemy to oppressive libel laws to internet censorship, he paints a sobering picture of the challenges facing those who wish to express controversial ideas or speak truth to power.
The Satanic Verses and the Rise of Religious Censorship
Cohen begins by examining one of the most infamous censorship controversies of the 20th century - the violent backlash against Salman Rushdie's novel "The Satanic Verses." When the book was published in 1988, few could have predicted the firestorm it would ignite. While Rushdie had previously written works critical of culture and religion, "The Satanic Verses" provoked an unprecedented reaction.
The key difference was the rising power and influence of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini. Seeking to solidify his authority in the Muslim world, Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie's execution and inciting worldwide protests against the book. This sparked a wave of violence, including bombings of bookstores that carried the novel.
World leaders quickly capitulated, with many banning the book to appease angry mobs and maintain Muslim support. Islamic leaders began preaching about a global conspiracy to persecute Islam, arguing that murdering liberal voices was justified as they were insulting the faith.
This violent suppression of free speech had a chilling effect. Writers and artists became afraid to criticize or even discuss Islam for fear of retribution. The murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in 2004 and the difficulty finding an illustrator for a children's book about Muhammad demonstrated how fear was silencing voices.
The Liberal Retreat
In the wake of the Rushdie affair, Cohen argues that many liberals began to censor themselves out of fear, even in Western democracies. There was a noticeable shift away from defending controversial speech and toward sympathizing with those claiming offense.
As Robert Hughes noted in "Culture of Complaint," while liberals in universities spoke out loudly against racism and sexism, they fell silent when it came to murderous threats against free speech. There seemed to be more sympathy for unintended victims like bombed bookstores than for authors like Rushdie.
This attitude implied that those who "provoked" anger through their speech were partly to blame for the violent reactions. It was a stark contrast to how liberals had previously confronted injustices like apartheid head-on.
Western writers and comedians began to focus their criticism on Christianity rather than Islam, despite many non-Western societies holding oppressive attitudes toward Christians. Journalists downplayed atrocities committed by Islamists while heavily reporting on Western misdeeds in places like Iraq, seemingly to protect themselves from retribution.
Cohen argues this self-censorship was just as dangerous as direct suppression, as it resulted in important information and perspectives being left unwritten and unspoken.
Manufacturing Outrage
Religious leaders and authoritarian governments have found that maintaining a state of perpetual outrage among their followers is an effective way to maintain power and silence dissent. By constantly finding new "offenses" to highlight, they keep populations fearful and angry while positioning themselves as protectors and saviors.
This tactic is not limited to Muslim countries. In 1990s India, the Hindu majority stoked outrage over perceived insults to Hinduism in art as a way to counter the growing influence of other religious parties. Muslim artist M.F. Husain became a target, with his traditional paintings of Hindu nudes suddenly deemed offensive because of his faith.
Leaders in countries like Iran recognize the power that artists, journalists, and writers can have in shaping public opinion. As a result, they respond to even minor criticisms with disproportionate force to discourage future dissent. This heavy-handed approach often succeeds in quieting liberal voices through self-censorship.
Wealth and Censorship
Cohen argues that the growth of wealth in countries like China, Russia, and parts of the Middle East has actually impaired freedom of speech rather than expanding it. As a narrow segment of the population grows richer, their power to control information increases.
Many of the world's largest oil and gas companies are state-controlled entities in countries notorious for corruption. Yet there are few voices calling out these issues, as the governments also control most media outlets.
Speaking out against such powerful interests carries enormous personal risk in countries with poor human rights records. Meanwhile, the super-wealthy can use their resources to protect themselves and suppress dissent, sometimes even employing private armies.
The 2008 financial crisis gave some of these oligarchic states an advantage, as they were less affected than Western economies. This allowed them to further consolidate control over information while international attention was focused elsewhere.
Workplace Censorship
Even in ostensibly free countries, Cohen points out that freedom of speech is often curtailed in the workplace. Britain's complex whistleblower laws, for instance, make it difficult for employees to speak out about wrongdoing without risking their careers.
While whistleblowers are theoretically protected, the burden of proof is on the employee to show they would face direct harm for speaking up. Courts tend to favor employers, making it easy for companies to dismiss complaints or obtain gag orders.
As a result, many workers self-censor to protect their job prospects and financial security. Some are even rewarded for their silence. This climate of fear contributed to the 2008 financial crisis, as employees were afraid to speak up about flaws in the banking and mortgage industries.
Cohen cites the example of Frederick Goodwin, head of the Royal Bank of Scotland, who was known for bullying employees into silence. This suppression of dissenting voices ultimately played a role in the global economic meltdown.
England's Archaic Libel Laws
Cohen dedicates significant attention to England's outdated libel laws, which he argues are being exploited to suppress free speech even beyond the country's borders. The current legal framework stems from a 13th-century feudal system that prioritized protecting the reputations of the powerful.
Under English law, the burden of proof in libel cases falls on the defendant rather than the accuser. This means that if you publicly speculate about a powerful person's misdeeds, they can sue you for libel and you must prove that your claims are true - a reversal of how most legal systems operate.
This system heavily favors the wealthy, who can use the threat of expensive lawsuits to silence critics. The global reach of online publications means that these laws can be applied to writers and outlets anywhere in the world, as long as the content is accessible in England.
Oligarchs and other powerful figures exploit this by establishing a minimal presence in England - such as buying property - which then allows them to sue for libel in English courts. The exorbitant costs of fighting such cases lead many publications to self-censor, softening language or scrapping stories entirely to avoid legal troubles.
The Internet Revolution
The rise of the internet initially seemed to herald a new era of free speech and information sharing that would be difficult for governments and powerful interests to control. The second Iraq War marked a turning point, as online outlets gave journalists new platforms to criticize political and military leaders outside traditional media channels.
The internet removed many physical barriers to information sharing, allowing leaked documents to spread rapidly across borders. It also democratized publishing, giving anyone with a computer and internet connection the ability to reach a global audience.
Many activists hailed this as a technological revolution against censorship. Early legal battles, like the striking down of a US proposal to regulate "indecent" online content, seemed to indicate that attempts to control the internet would be futile and unconstitutional.
The flattening of the media landscape appeared to take the power to control information away from the wealthy elites who had previously dominated traditional media outlets. For a time, it seemed the internet might usher in a new age of transparency and free expression.
The Backlash Against Online Freedom
However, Cohen argues that the promise of internet freedom has not been fully realized. Oppressive regimes and powerful interests have found new ways to control online discourse and silence dissenting voices.
Rather than trying to directly censor the internet, which is largely impossible, they target financial and hardware vulnerabilities. In Russia, the government punishes businesses that support critics by seizing assets, while rewarding loyal oligarchs with control of major media outlets. Harassment and violence against activists serve as warnings to others who might speak out.
China employs a mix of technological and social controls, blocking websites and limiting access while working with private enterprises to monitor and censor content. The sheer volume of online voices also makes it difficult for any single message to break through the noise, forcing writers to fight for attention and credibility.
While the internet has certainly expanded access to information, Cohen contends that the dream of a perfectly free online society remains far from reality. Powerful actors have adapted to the new landscape and found ways to reassert control over the flow of information.
The Illusion of Progress
Throughout the book, Cohen challenges the notion that we are living in an age of expanding freedoms and argues that in many ways, censorship and suppression of speech have become more insidious and widespread.
He points out how even well-meaning attempts to protect minority groups or promote social harmony can lead to restrictions on free expression. The fear of offending or provoking violence has led many institutions to self-censor or avoid controversial topics altogether.
Cohen is particularly critical of what he sees as a retreat by many liberals from defending free speech principles. He argues that by focusing more on protecting people from offensive speech than preserving the right to speak freely, many on the left have inadvertently aligned themselves with authoritarian forces.
The book paints a sobering picture of how censorship has evolved in the digital age. While violent suppression of speech still occurs, Cohen shows how financial, legal, and social pressures are often more effective at silencing dissent. The chilling effect of potential lawsuits, loss of employment, or online harassment leads many to self-censor rather than risk speaking out.
The Importance of Defending Free Speech
Despite the challenges he outlines, Cohen remains a passionate advocate for freedom of expression. He argues that the right to voice unpopular or controversial ideas is essential for social progress, scientific advancement, and the functioning of democracy.
Throughout history, many ideas that were once considered blasphemous, obscene, or dangerous have become widely accepted. Without the ability to challenge conventional wisdom and authority, societies stagnate and injustices go unchallenged.
Cohen calls on readers to be vigilant in defending free speech, even when we disagree with the content of that speech. He warns that accepting censorship in one area often leads to expanding restrictions in others.
The book serves as a call to action, urging people to speak out against censorship in all its forms and to support those who take risks to express unpopular ideas. Cohen argues that maintaining a truly free society requires constant effort and a willingness to tolerate speech that we may find offensive or uncomfortable.
Conclusion
"You Can't Read This Book" offers a wide-ranging and thought-provoking examination of the state of free speech in the modern world. Nick Cohen's analysis reveals how censorship has evolved and adapted to new technologies and social conditions, often hiding behind noble-sounding justifications.
The book challenges readers to reconsider their assumptions about freedom of expression and to recognize the many subtle ways in which that freedom is being eroded. Cohen makes a compelling case that defending the right to speak freely - even when we disagree with the speech in question - is essential for maintaining open and democratic societies.
While the challenges to free speech that Cohen outlines are daunting, his work also serves as a reminder of the power of words and ideas to shape the world. By shining a light on the forces working to control and suppress information, he hopes to inspire a renewed commitment to protecting this fundamental human right.
In an age where it's easy to take freedom of expression for granted, "You Can't Read This Book" is an important wake-up call. It reminds us that the right to speak freely is not guaranteed and must be actively defended against threats from all quarters - whether they come from authoritarian governments, religious extremists, powerful corporations, or even our own complacency.
Cohen's work challenges us to remain vigilant, to speak out against censorship, and to create a world where the free exchange of ideas is not just protected, but celebrated. Only by doing so can we hope to address the complex challenges facing our societies and continue to make progress toward a more just and open world.