Freedom of Speech Redux

April 29, 2014 Longrider Civil Liberties, General News, Political 6

Someone who really doesn’t get it and is a danger to the principle.

There is no place in our community for hateful, shaming, denigrating, humiliating and intimidating speech. It’s just not on, and I’m not sure how we arrived at a destination where some believe that this type of behavior is acceptable, or even an absolute right.

That is what freedom of speech means – that people get to say horrible things and don’t get prosecuted by the state for it. Someone who says “I believe in freedom of speech but…” doesn’t believe in freedom of speech,  they believe in the right of the state to dictate what we say, what opinions we express and, therefore, they are supporters of totalitarian censorship. So, yeah, it is bad manners to make unkind comment, but it should never be illegal, nor should a court uphold any case brought because someone’s delicate feelings are hurt. There is not and should not be a right not to be offended. But ,of course, there is always the illiberal idiot who thinks otherwise. Step forward Bindi Cole.

Not everyone has a thick skin, nor should they have to. With all this in mind, if we make the right to deeply hurt others a priority, what is that really saying about us as a whole?

It is saying that ours is a free society. Clearly, though, this is not what Cole wants.

There is free speech, and then there is the responsibility we all share as decent human beings not to savagely hurt others or incite hatred within the community.

No. There is free speech and there is not. The responsibility being inferred here is a personal matter, not one for the state to impose with the weight of the law.

And, someone who really does get it. Sam commenting on this story at Tim’s place.

But where other people (on both sides) also get it wrong is that It does not mean that you have a ‘right to be heard.’ it does not mean you have a right to a platform that belongs to someone else. It does not mean anyone has to listen to you. It doesn’t mean they have to respect your opinions. It doesn’t meant that they have to host you, endure you, or tolerate you without getting all up in your face and exercising their right to tell you they think you’re a c***. It certainly doesn’t mean that a news outlet has to invite you on simply becuase they’ve also invited someone you disagree with (although they very well might for shits and giggles).

It just means you can’t be prosecuted.

Yes. Precisely. Which is something the odious and terminally dense Rickie who trolls liberal and pro-smoking blogs with his bile fails to grasp. Blogs are private property. we can support free speech – in that we oppose the state prosecuting Rickie for talking out of his arse, while at the same time choosing not to provide him with a platform to do so. Because, you see, freedom of speech does not automatically confer a right to be heard and it does not mean that you are entitled to a platform; it simply means that you have the right to speak openly without getting your collar felt. That’s it.

6 Comments

  1. I quite agree, I allow open commentary on my blog save for spammers and flamers, but I could just as easily turn off all comments because it’s my blog (in a manner of speaking as blogger owns it and I suspect that I’m a product of theirs to sell) Paul Weston of Liberty GB was arrested for quoting Winston Churchill the other day and charged with a religious hate crime. This was a direct attack on freedom of speech and happens a lot in the UK for certain groups or individuals, others seem to be able to say what they like calling for the deaths of any they oppose and be ignored by the police.
    Weston ought to have been free to say what he likes, same as Anjem Choudhary, that one can and one can’t says a lot about our system and how the authorities trample all over the right to say (and think) what we want, particularly if it isn’t what they want us to say or think.

  3. From the Telegraph report on Weston’s arrest:

    “Reportedly, a woman came out of the Guildhall and asked Mr Weston if he had the authorisation to make this speech. When he answered that he didn’t, she told him ‘It’s disgusting!’ and then called the police.”

    Frightening, if true, that people are walking around who think you need authorisation for a speech.

    Also from the Telegraph report:

    A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: “We are sure that even Mr Churchill, if confronted with what he wrote as a young man would now blush at his own writings, just as he would when presented with his description of Gandhi as a ‘half- naked fakir.’

    Possibly the great man might prefer he had not described Gandhi thus, but would he blush at these words about Islam:

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

    It is a mark of his intelligence and perception that at 24 he could absolutely nail Islam. His words are as relevant today as they were when he wrote them.

    • That Gandhi mentioned by the MCB – would that be the same Gandhi who inherited the family businesses of slum landlording and loansharking? Who Woops, caused offence.

  4. It is clear from Churchill’s words that he dislikes the religion and he tells you why he dislikes it, his concrete reasons. He dislikes what the religion teaches to those who subscribe to it. What he is not doing is calling for hatred against people who are Moslems. He pities its followers, he does not despise or hate them. Of course, in a free society you are allowed to be as scathing as you like in your attacks on persons and groups, only watching out for the laws of slander and libel of individuals. But even under the loathsome legislation which exists in the UK, if Weston simply quoted the words of Churchill, then those words in no way contravene it, especially with the Lords amendment put there to protect free speech against Labour’s typical totalitarian new attempt at a blasphemy law – a worse one to replace the old one they repealed.

Comments are closed.