Глава 1
The Silenced Voices: How Censorship Shapes Our World
In a world where information flows freely across digital platforms, one might assume that censorship is a relic of the past. Yet Nick Cohen's "You Can't Read This Book" delivers a sobering reality check: censorship hasn't disappeared-it has evolved. The book, which earned praise from Christopher Hitchens as "the most important defense of free speech published in our time," reveals how powerful forces-whether religious fundamentalists, wealthy oligarchs, or authoritarian governments-continue to silence voices they find threatening. When Salman Rushdie received the 2023 Peace Prize of the German Book Trade, he reminded us that "free speech is the whole ball game," echoing Cohen's central thesis that freedom requires constant vigilance. As social media platforms increasingly shape public discourse while simultaneously enabling unprecedented surveillance, Cohen's analysis has only grown more relevant, offering a roadmap for defending expression in an age where censorship wears many disguises.
Глава 2
The Fatwa That Changed Everything: Religious Censorship in the Modern World
The story begins with Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," a novel that triggered an unprecedented global terror campaign in 1988. Though Rushdie believed people were protesting "a book which does not exist," reactionary mobs needed no actual reading to justify violence. The controversy began with India banning the book in October 1988, then spread worldwide through Jamaat-e-Islami, an organization founded by Maulana Maududi who combined "purified" Islam with European totalitarianism. Within months, protests erupted from Bradford to Bombay, with many demonstrators admitting they had never read the book they were condemning.
Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa, issued on February 14, 1989, redrew the boundaries of free expression by ordering the execution of foreign citizens for writing fiction. The violence was global and immediate: bombings at bookstores in Berkeley and London, riots in Pakistan killing dozens, and concrete barriers protecting Penguin's offices in London and New York. Major bookstore chains like Waldenbooks and Barnes & Noble removed the book from shelves. Rushdie lived under constant protection of the British Special Branch, moved between over 50 safe houses, and became "a refugee without hope of asylum." His Japanese translator was murdered, his Italian translator stabbed, and his Norwegian publisher shot. His enemies justified their threats through elaborate conspiracy theories claiming he was a Western agent in a Jewish-Zionist plot against Islam, despite his own Muslim background.
The Rushdie affair revealed a stark contrast in global movements: while Eastern Europe and South Africa were experiencing bloodless revolutions toward liberalism, with events like the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of apartheid, a new enemy of free expression was emerging. Unlike communist regimes collapsing under their own weight, Islamist censorship brought violence directly to Western cities through bombed bookshops, death threats, and assassination attempts. This challenged Western liberals who had grown accustomed to defending values without personal risk, forcing them to confront whether they would defend free speech when doing so might cost their lives. Notable authors like Roald Dahl and John le Carre criticized Rushdie, suggesting he should have anticipated the reaction.
The most effective censorship occurred when victims pretended it didn't exist-intellectuals posing as brave dissenters while carefully avoiding topics that might bring actual danger. They criticized Christianity and Western governments who wouldn't harm them while ignoring Islamists who might. As artist Grayson Perry candidly admitted, "The reason I have not gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel the real fear that someone will slit my throat." This self-censorship extended to major media outlets, with newspapers like The Times of London and The New York Times refusing to publish cartoons related to Islamic topics, while freely printing provocative images targeting other religions. The phenomenon became known as "anticipatory surrender," where Western institutions preemptively restricted expression to avoid potential conflict.
Глава 3
Manufacturing Offense: How Censorship Spreads Through Cultural Intimidation
The power to manufacture offense has become a potent weapon in the censor's arsenal, transforming perceived slights into pretexts for suppressing expression. The case of Sherry Jones's "The Jewel of Medina" vividly illustrates this dynamic. Random House initially championed the novel, investing $100,000 in an advance and planning extensive marketing for what they saw as a thoughtful, historically researched portrayal of Muhammad's wife Aisha. However, they abruptly canceled publication after receiving "cautionary advice" warning of potential violence. Professor Denise Spellberg, who received an advance copy, actively campaigned against the book, contacting Muslim colleagues to "warn Muslims" about its content, denouncing it as "ugly" and "stupid" despite its demonstrably sympathetic portrayal of Muhammad and careful attention to historical detail.
The response from American Muslim leaders revealed a striking contrast to this manufactured controversy. Prominent voices like Shahed Amanullah and Asra Nomani strongly defended free speech principles, with Amanullah articulating the fundamental democratic principle that "the best response to free speech ought to be more speech in return." While Random House retreated, smaller publisher Beaufort Books showed courage by acquiring the rights. However, their commitment to free expression was met with violence when radical Islamist Ali Beheshti firebombed the British publisher's home, demonstrating how manufactured outrage can escalate to real-world consequences.
This pattern of manufactured offense leading to violence reached its apex in the Danish cartoon controversy. What began as a local publication in Jyllands-Posten became an international crisis only after three politically motivated imams, seeking to enhance their influence within Danish Islam, deliberately inflamed tensions. They assembled a inflammatory dossier for circulation in the Middle East that included images never published by the newspaper, most notably a photograph from a French agricultural fair showing a farmer in a pig-squealing contest, which they falsely presented as a mockery of Muhammad. This deliberate misrepresentation transformed a local editorial decision into a global flashpoint.
The escalation reached new heights when Muslim Brotherhood leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi called for an "international day of anger." The resulting violence claimed 139 lives, sparked attacks on embassies, and triggered widespread boycotts of Danish products. The author meticulously documents how various authoritarian regimes exploited this manufactured crisis for political gain. Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak used it to reinforce his argument that democracy was incompatible with Egyptian society. Meanwhile, the Syrian and Iranian regimes seized upon the controversy to deflect attention from domestic challenges, including human rights violations and economic problems. This cynical manipulation of religious sentiment for political purposes reveals how manufactured offense serves as a powerful tool for both censorship and authoritarian control.
The pattern demonstrates how a small number of motivated actors - whether academics, religious leaders, or political operatives - can transform legitimate debate into dangerous confrontation through strategic amplification of offense. This manufactured outrage creates a climate of fear that effectively suppresses free expression through self-censorship, achieving censorship's goals without formal government action.
Глава 4
The Racism of the Anti-Racists: How Cultural Relativism Betrays Minority Voices
The case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali reveals a disturbing paradox in Western liberalism. After escaping an arranged marriage and building a new life in the Netherlands, Hirsi Ali confronted the abuse of immigrant women while criticizing European liberals for their cultural relativism-a "squishy liberal version of apartheid" where authorities ignored abuses because the victims weren't white.
Her outspokenness led to collaboration with filmmaker Theo van Gogh on "Submission," a film about women's oppression under Islam, resulting in van Gogh's murder by a jihadist who threatened Hirsi Ali as his next target. Rather than defending her, liberal opinion turned against her, with Dutch media investigating inconsistencies in her asylum application.
Her neighbors sued to remove her from her safe apartment, claiming her presence violated their human rights. Rita Verdonk from her own party threatened her citizenship. Meanwhile, liberal intellectuals like Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash attacked her as an "Enlightenment fundamentalist," dismissing her advocacy for women's rights and comparing her to religious extremists.
The author dismantles conservative fears about Muslim demographic takeover of Europe, calling these predictions "nonsense" that ignore falling birth rates and falsely assume European Muslims form a cohesive bloc. He draws parallels between Islamist terrorists and white supremacists like Anders Breivik, noting both target "traitors" within their own communities rather than their supposed enemies.
While Islamists threaten liberal Muslims and ex-Muslims, European societies respond with a contradictory mix of authoritarianism (anti-terror laws, burqa bans) and appeasement (engaging with non-violent Islamists). This hypocrisy leaves dissidents like Naser Khader, Maryam Namazie, Rachid Ben Ali, Sooreh Hera, and singer Deeyah vulnerable to threats with little institutional support. Many formerly leftist Muslim dissidents now feel betrayed by liberals who fail to defend freedom of conscience when it conflicts with religious sensitivities.
Глава 5
The Cult of the Supreme Manager: How Corporate Power Silences Truth
The 2008 financial crisis starkly revealed how workplace censorship enables catastrophic failures in modern corporations. While citizens in democratic societies can freely criticize political leaders without repercussion, employees who dare to publicly criticize their employers face swift and often permanent career destruction. Britain's supposedly robust legal protections for whistleblowers have proven remarkably ineffective in practice, requiring employees to first report concerns through internal channels-a requirement that one critic memorably described as "like telling a mouse to go see the cat." This system effectively ensures problems remain buried within organizational hierarchies.
When whistleblowers do emerge, corporate HR departments swiftly deploy an arsenal of legal tools, particularly gagging injunctions through confidentiality clauses, to silence dissent. This practice extends far beyond the financial sector-even medical professionals face career devastation for exposing patient neglect or dangerous practices. In one notable case, a senior nurse who reported dangerous understaffing was forced out of her position and struggled to find employment anywhere in the healthcare sector. Most employees, witnessing such consequences, choose self-censorship over unemployment, as hierarchical organizations increasingly demand military-style obedience and loyalty.
The spectacular fall of Royal Bank of Scotland under Fred "the Shred" Goodwin serves as a perfect case study in how workplace tyranny breeds financial catastrophe. Goodwin's rise from humble Scottish origins to global banking prominence transformed into a cautionary tale of unchecked power. His management style became increasingly dictatorial-conducting notorious "prayer meetings" where executives were publicly humiliated, demanding impossible performance targets, and dismissively labeling anyone who raised concerns as "Business Prevention Officers." Under his leadership, RBS abandoned its traditional conservative "value banking" approach in favor of high-risk derivatives trading and aggressive expansion, culminating in the catastrophic 48 billion ABN AMRO acquisition just as global credit markets began to freeze.
The banking system's perverse incentive structures ensure that silence persists even when insiders recognize impending disasters. Whistleblowers face not just job loss but permanent industry blacklisting, while those who remain silent often keep their substantial bonuses even when banks fail. This dynamic was perfectly illustrated in the aftermath of the RBS bailout-within three years, 200 staff members received million-pound bonuses while the general public endured recession and severe public service cuts. The message was clear: loyalty to the institution, even in wrongdoing, pays better than ethical behavior.
The case of Paul Moore, Halifax's former head of risk management, perfectly exemplifies this toxic dynamic. After presenting well-documented warnings to the board about dangerous lending practices, CEO James Crosby summarily fired him, despite regulatory requirements for his position. While Moore became essentially unemployable in his field, Crosby received a knighthood and a prestigious regulatory appointment. Moore's subsequent comprehensive survey of risk managers across the industry confirmed what many suspected-the majority had seen the crisis coming but were effectively silenced by corporate cultures that "inhibited effective challenge to risk-taking." This systematic suppression of critical voices continues to pose a serious threat to financial stability and corporate governance.
Глава 6
A Town Called Sue: How Libel Laws Protect the Powerful
England's libel laws have made it a global pariah for free expression, earning London the notorious nickname "the libel capital of the world." The feudal origins of English libel law trace back to Edward I's 1275 statute against "scandalum magnatum"-forbidding tales causing discord between king and nobles. This medieval concept continues to shape modern jurisprudence, creating an environment where wealth equals power in the courts. Unlike natural justice or American law, the burden of proof falls entirely on defendants, who must prove their statements true once a claimant shows even minimal potential damage to reputation.
The archaic 1849 Brunswick Rule continues to haunt modern publishing: every republication of an allegedly libelous statement is treated as a fresh offense and separately actionable. This precedent proves especially dangerous in the internet age, when decades-old content remains accessible indefinitely through archives, social media shares, and cached versions. A single article could theoretically generate thousands of separate legal claims, creating an impossible burden for publishers and journalists.
Robert Maxwell's systematic abuse of libel laws exemplifies how the wealthy weaponize the system. The crooked media mogul bombarded critics with writs despite his dubious business practices, filing over 21 separate suits in one year alone. He targeted not just major publishers but individual authors, journalists, and even small bookshops distributing critical works, forcing many into bankruptcy. When Private Eye magazine reported his pension fund theft, Maxwell sued for "injury to feelings and reputation," winning substantial damages. Weeks later, he died, revealing he had indeed stolen 727 million from employee pensions. The judges who had punished truthful investigations expressed no regret or reflection on their role in suppressing vital information.
The Trafigura case represents a particularly egregious example of judicial censorship serving corporate interests. After dumping toxic waste in Ivory Coast caused 17 deaths and thousands of illnesses, the multinational company employed "super-injunctions"-court orders so secret that even mentioning their existence constitutes contempt-to suppress their own internal report documenting harmful chemicals. When Labour MP Paul Farrelly mentioned the case in Parliament, Trafigura's lawyers Carter-Ruck threatened journalists with contempt charges for reporting it, directly challenging the 1689 Bill of Rights guaranteeing parliamentary free speech. Only after widespread social media outrage did they withdraw the threats.
England's libel courts are dominated by pseudo-liberal judges who consistently prioritize reputation over truth, showing no instinctive respect for free speech principles. The system's punitive costs-averaging 140,000 for a preliminary hearing alone, 140 times higher than European averages-create an insurmountable barrier to justice for all but the wealthiest litigants. Most cases never reach court as publishers quietly settle rather than risk financial ruin, creating a chilling effect on investigative journalism and public interest reporting. Notable victims include scientific journals forced to retract valid studies and human rights organizations silenced from exposing corruption.
Глава 7
The Internet's False Promise: Technology's Dual Nature
The Internet inspired utopian visions because it seemed to combine all previous communication technologies into one transformative medium. Readers became writers through comments and blog posts, passive audiences became active participants through social media, and private conversations could become viral phenomena reaching millions within hours. The technology democratized media by eliminating traditional barriers-anyone with a laptop could publish without needing expensive equipment, professional credentials, or corporate backing. This radical accessibility appeared to herald a new era of democratic discourse.
This technological revolution addressed what Orwell's communist-influenced critics correctly identified as a fundamental flaw in traditional "freedom of the press" - it primarily benefited wealthy individuals and corporations who could afford printing presses, broadcast licenses, and distribution networks. Now publication costs were negligible, digital space was effectively unlimited, and potential audiences were global. Small independent voices could theoretically reach the same audience as major media conglomerates.
Yet this technological utopianism proved deeply misguided. While the Web fundamentally changes the world, like all communication revolutions throughout history - from the printing press to radio to television - it primarily amplifies existing power structures rather than disrupting them. Beyond empowering democratic citizens and dissidents, it equally strengthens governments, dictatorships, police surveillance, corporate spying, employers' monitoring capabilities, blackmailers, and terrorists. The same tools that enable protest movements also enable their suppression.
The Internet's dual nature as both liberator and tool of oppression is perfectly illustrated by Paul Chambers' story from England. When snow closed Robin Hood airport and Chambers jokingly tweeted about "blowing the airport sky high" if they didn't "get their shit together," the surveillance capabilities of the Internet revealed their dark side. Airport staff monitoring Twitter found his comment and reported it. Though security officers recognized it wasn't a credible threat, rigid post-9/11 procedural requirements led to Chambers' arrest by anti-terrorism police. He lost his job when colleagues witnessed his arrest, and despite prosecutors acknowledging he posed no threat, a magistrate fined him 1,000. His case demonstrates how casual online speech can be weaponized by automated surveillance systems and inflexible bureaucracies.
The Web's promise of unrestricted freedom paradoxically denies many the audience that makes freedom effective. While potentially anyone can reach a global audience online, in practice, hardly anyone does. The vast majority of online content receives minimal attention, buried under an avalanche of competing voices. The revolution in communications technology has created a system where it's easier than ever to write and publish-and simultaneously easier than ever to be completely ignored. Major platforms and influential voices still dominate the conversation through sophisticated algorithms, marketing budgets, and established networks. True democratization remains elusive as new forms of digital gatekeeping emerge to replace traditional barriers.
Глава 8
The March of the Nerds: How Collective Action Defends Free Speech
Simon Singh's battle against the British Chiropractic Association demonstrates how collective action can overcome censorship. After Singh wrote a Guardian article criticizing chiropractors for promoting "bogus treatments" for children without evidence, the BCA sued him personally for libel. Despite Singh's evidence-based arguments, the English judge ruled against him, demonstrating how English libel law stifles scientific debate.
Singh faced a nearly impossible legal situation after the judge ruled he had accused chiropractors of deliberate fraud rather than merely promoting unproven treatments. Despite risking 100,000 of his own money and potentially ten times that amount if he lost, Singh refused to apologize. His wife Anita Anand supported his principled stand, understanding that an apology would not only make him complicit in a lie but would silence other journalists and scientists from challenging dubious health claims.
At a London pub meeting, Singh's audience of science bloggers and skeptics responded with unprecedented enthusiasm to fight the system. The "Streisand effect" took hold as dozens of websites republished Singh's original article, transforming a small newspaper piece into a global phenomenon. While traditional media remained cautious, online activists proved impossible to silence-they were too numerous and individually too small to target. The skeptic community crowd-sourced research for Singh's legal team, investigated and reported hundreds of chiropractors for advertising violations, and created a virtual community that became Britain's most significant free-speech movement in decades.
Faced with growing public pressure, packed courtrooms, and political concern, the Court of Appeal reversed previous rulings. The Lord Chief Justice even invoked Milton's Areopagitica and compared English libel law to the Inquisition's persecution of Galileo. The campaign led to manifesto commitments from all major political parties to reform libel laws, though the proposed changes remained more conservative than America's First Amendment protections.
Глава 9
Defending Free Speech in a Censorious World
Free societies remain free only when citizens actively fight for their freedom. Throughout history, free speech has been rare. Criticize the state or break tribal taboos, and punishment follows. The powerful can't afford to lose face without losing authority.
Ancient Athenians practiced parrhesia-"all speech" or "true speech"-giving citizens the right to speak truth to power. Yet even Athens had limits, and Socrates was executed for "corrupting youth" and religious impiety.
John Stuart Mill focused on self-censorship imposed by Victorian society's received opinions. He insisted the majority had no right to silence arguments, as without argument we can never be certain our opinions are true. Mill believed censorship hindered human progress, as "ages are no more infallible than individuals."
Cohen offers twelve essential principles for defending free speech in the modern world:
1. The political is not personal: While social interactions require polite self-censorship, public ideas with power to oppress others deserve no such protection.
2. The personal is not political: Privacy rights deserve protection as the internet erases the anonymity that cities once provided.
3. Respect is the enemy of tolerance: Religious demands for "respect" undermine the hard-won gains of religious toleration.
4. If you are frightened, at least have the guts to say so: Since the Rushdie Affair, Western intellectuals have been afraid to admit their fear of religious violence.
5. Once you have paid him the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane: Appeasement only feeds extremism.
6. If you have the chance to enact one law, make it the First Amendment: Despite America's flaws, its constitutional protection of free speech remains "the best guarantor of freedom yet written."
7. Democracy does not end at the office door: Worker-directors and whistleblower protections are essential to restrict plutocratic power.
8. The wealthy have means enough to defend themselves: Free speech advances by declaring subjects too important for censorship.
9. Free-speaking societies are rare and must be protected: If rights are good enough for you, they're good enough for everyone else.
10. Beware of anyone who begins a sentence with, "There's no such thing as absolute free speech, so...": Mill's principle that censorship should only apply in extreme circumstances remains the best guide.
11. Location, location, location: Where you speak matters as much as what you say. To be heard, critics must break into mainstream discourse.
12. The Net cannot set you free: Only politics can do that.
