Freedom of Speech

June 10, 2009 Longrider Civil Liberties, misanthropy, Political 11

Following on from yesterday’s discussion, I see that Tim is picking up on the theme.

However, the police have a duty to protect him from such mobs. Just as they have a duty to protect anyone lawfully going about their own business from violence and threats of it.

It might be true that fascist scum would, if they were in power, use mobs to silence us, to prevent us from going about our lawful business. It might be that given that, that some would say we should give them a dose of their own medicine. Why should we allow fascists free rein when they would not allow us free rein?

As the Devil said, the reason we do not deny fascist scum the protection of the law is that we are not fascist scum.

This, of course, is the point. I said something similar this morning:

The only way to deal with extreme views is to allow them to be aired and rebut them. Censorship is not self defence. And what we saw yesterday was censorship applied with thuggery – and it wasn’t the Nazis carrying it out. My enemy’s enemy is most definitely not my friend. The Anti-Nazis are as nasty and repressive as those they seek to oppose. They are the same under the skin.

Or, as Dungeeking says, laugh at them.

So instead, let’s laugh at them. Let them have their platforms, their petty speeches, their brief and short-lived moment in the sun. Let Griffin spout his bile on Question Time, or wherever. Don’t ban them, don’t shout and scream. Let them rant. Then laugh at them.

While I understand (and share) Stephen’s disgust at the BNP;

If someone believes I have no right to exist, then I see no reason why I should accord him any privileges whatsoever.

I cannot agree with his conclusion. Nick Griffin’s views are just that; views (and, yes, I defend absolutely the right of people to say the most repugnant things – even those Stephen deplores here). Views do not harm people until they are put into practice and Griffin cannot do that unless he is voted into office and forms a government. Therefore, it is to his potential voters that we must appeal; it is to them we must expose Griffin and his ideas. How, exactly, can we do that if we deny him freedom of speech? Freedom, I remind you, that we wish for ourselves.

Yes, I realise that it is something of a cliché and the context is different, but it is relevant, so I make no apology for repeating this quote from A Man For All Seasons here as its message clearly isn’t getting through:

What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? … And when the law was down, and the Devil turned round on you—where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s, and if you cut them down—and you’re just the man to do it—do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Although we are talking about freedom of speech rather than the law, the point still stands.

Freedom of speech is an absolute and Nick Griffin is absolutely entitled to that right. There are no shades of grey and it is not a false dichotomy when I say you either believe in it or you do not. The moment you weaken and make an exception, then you cede the high moral ground and demonstrate that you do not believe in the principle of freedom of speech. There are no exceptions.

Tags:

11 Comments

  1. Although we are talking about freedom of speech rather than the law, the point still stands.

    Yes it does.

    On another matter, I’m afraid I’ve raked up an old issue with you and DK, mainly because of something which occurred with my bike.

  3. I have opposed the undemocratic Left’s “No platform for fascists or racists” line ever since the 1970s. Free speech should not be denied to any point of view. Only if it is abused by direct calls to violence or other forms of lawbreaking should it be prosecuted, and the courts – not thuggish mobs – are the only valid judges. We have already arrived at the situation where those who consider themselves affronted or insulted by other viewpoints effectively silence free speech through threats of violence. They, too, should be dealt with severely by the law.

    Now that the BNP have two MEPs, the mainstream parties are going to find it increasingly difficult to chicken out of debating with them.

  5. They are definitely racists. But fascists? I’m not so sure about that. A few of the extremist groupings from Eastern Europe (some of whom the BNP team up with) are much more frightening.

  6. Donna Guthrie of Retards Unite Against Fascism told the BBC that it was OK to deny the BNP their freedom of speech (what’s left of it), which is legally defined as a basic human right because a) they are fascists and b) they got such a small share of the vote at the EU elections.

    Really. So according to her, it’s OK to remove the human rights of minorities so long as they’re a minority that you really, really don’t like. Martin Smith (an utter mong) made more or less the same point on Newsnight.

    When did the Righteous have that meeting ?

    Epic self delusion.

  7. What about some of the Eastern European groups the Tories are thinking of linking up with?

    Boo-words like “racism” and “fascism” are brain-dead Leftie devices to stifle discussion of issues and policies.

  9. One of the Tories’ partners in the yet-to-be-formed Movement for European Reform, Poland’s Law and Justice, is a homophobic party. They were very anti-gay, particularly when they were in power there a few years ago.

  10. Compare the attitude against the BNP with the attitude against Islamists, who also “deny our right to exist” and who are infinitely more dangerous. With them, no freedom is too dear to sacrifice; the full protections of the Law are showered upon them.

    Why does the idea “if we act like them we become like them” only apply to Islamists and not the BNP?

  11. As a muslim and student of sufism, I find that this matter of human inconsistency pointed out by Rob to be one of the main topics of our on-going enquiries.

    As to speech-freedom, Longrider is right at every point of the compass.

Comments are closed.