h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

My basic point is that the debate was very little to do with freedom of speech. Griffin and Irving are not particularly qualified to speak on the topic...other than, as you say, to reap the benefits of a propaganda coup: 'Those nasty lefties are against freedom of speech'.

Give Ahmedineijad some credit. He's never pretented to be in favour of free speech. Neither has he accepted an invitation to speak in its defence.

There is of course the view that we should give the repellant every opportunity to be shown up for what they are. Let's face it, Irving/Griffin aren't arguing on the pro free speech bench are they? So they're going to lose.

I have genuine mixed feelings on this one. I tend to feel that the oxygen of publicity is more likely to drown Griffin. At the moment, he can be very selective which of his views can be laid bare in public. If people were to open that box and see the full panoply of repellence, I am sure the BNP would struggle to get their grannies to vote for them. As it is, they are able to campaign on issues such as immigration and connect with people who do have concerns on this issue.

By allowing them to live under a rock, we allow their views an ecosystem that sustains them. Lift the rock and let people see what they're about.

So let them debate 'This house believes that [insert ethnic group here] wants to rape your granny'. They've nothing to do with free speech.

'kin students!

how do the protesters who broke up a debate about free-speech by aparently exercising their right to free-speech defend their actions?

People who believe in blanket free speech have to take the rough with the smooth. People who have a more pragmatic approach have to stop tutting and saying "oh those pests!"

As to the legal debate: I don't necessarily support the law in Austria that prohibits Holocaust denial (because that pushes it under the carpet, as it were). but I wanted to point out that Irving hadn't been jailed because "someone disagreed with his views". it was because he was in a country and broke their laws.

We often have a lot to say about that type of thing here

>>People who have a more pragmatic approach have to stop tutting and saying "oh those pests!"

Pragmatic! I like that. It reminds me of an anti-apartheid action during my university days. An earnest SWP lassie asked some African students whether they thought John Carlyle should be allowed to speak. The looked askance at one another and took the cartons of eggs from beneath their jackets.

It looks like it wasn't off:

"Between 800 and 1,000 protestors held a demonstration outside the gates of the building but the debate eventually began about one-and-a-half hours late."

When I was in school some socialists broke up a libertarian debate by shouting down the speakers. They used the same logic, that the libertarian speaker shouldn't be given a forum. Where do you draw the line?

Well with (right) libertarians, one obviously lets tham take their place within the free market of ideas. If they can withstand a roughing up, they get to speak.

I am also divided on this one, on the one hand it is a fact that in areas where the BNP have public meetings racist attacks and community racil tension increase, the very definition of "Screaming fire in a crowded theatre".

On the other hand I dislike in principle the idea of people not be given the right to air their opinions. I also feel that the whol ide of fingers in the ear and the approach dealing with the issues the BNP talk about helps to ferment the conditionsa in whioch the BNP can be successful.

THe BNP lie and misinform (one they often say in poor areas is "We are the labour party your parents used to vote for"), and if no serious sensible mainstream types of whatever political stripe do not take them on and demolish their arguments then they get away with it.

A tricky one it has to be said.....

You have to hand it to the Oxford debating club. Really, look at the evidence - they've invited two exceptionally controversial individuals to speak at their private function, infuriated their peers and tutors (one described it as a "juvenile stunt") and by doing so have brought the issue of personal liberty to the view of the general public in a way no posho bunfight could otherwise have hoped for.

It's a coup for the left because nothing Griffin or Irving actually *said* has been promulgated, but the issue of whether or not they should be entitled to speak there, the implications such a debate has for the meaning of real democracy, its impact on a society bracing itself for ID cards and such has been palpable. You're talking about it here, and haven't heard a word from either of them.

On the other hand, they've been given a spurious air of 'We Speak The Truths You're Not Allowed To Hear'.

I'd deny them the oxygen of oxygen if I had it my way.

>>On the other hand, they've been given a spurious air of 'We Speak The Truths You're Not Allowed To Hear'.

They've also been given a red carpet into the Coliseum. The Oxford gang have laid down a gauntlet, and set a trap. By being the people they (Griffin & Irving) are, they engender the controversy they do, and subsequently elicit the trail of debate that always comes back to "are these people fit to be entitled to freedom of speech?"; a short cut to "Why are they so ing awkward to deal with?" which leads to the issue of what they believe in, and what's so very obviously wrong with it. It's politically pulling down their trousers in the playground.

So we go to Ed to draw the line on who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? Ed, would you mind posting an email address where we can reach you when I'm planning events? THanks.

I think you possibly missed the irony, AA.

Sorry, I was referring to post 27, which appeared completely un-ironic.

Then I'm sorry it was lost on you. Personally, I see something ironic in libertarians seeking societal protection for their rights. Hey ho.

Personally, I think they should have held the debate, although I agree with Ed that there's no requirement for the Oxford Union to seek out people with odious opinions.

It's worth pointing out in this context that the Oxford Union recently bowed to pressure from Alan Dershowitz to stop Normal Finkelstein speaking. More details at:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/conflicts/israel_palestine/free_speech_oxford_union

Good - that's dealt with the free speech argument anyway.

You can't have free speech unless you're saying things I agree with.

Not much difference between the protesters and Nick Griffin for me.

Well. Now.

There is a serious point behind my jocular (I thought ) remark about libertarians and free speech.

There's a paradox built into the idea of free speech. It has inherent limits. Consider who is responsible for guaranteeing free speech. Society. Governments. However, even the most liberal government, by it's nature, imposes constraints. Ideally, they are answerable to We The People as to what those constraints are - but we do, collectively, expect there to be limits. For example, no government can tolerate the expression of view which advocate the overthrow of the liberal consensus; we the people won't tolerate incitement of harm to others.

The question is whether Griffin, Irving et al overstep those limits. The answer will always be pragmatic. There will be a range of opinion. It cannot be said to be wholly a bad thing to prevent them speaking. It cannot be said to be wholly a good thing to give them freedom of speech. Or versa vice.

And how is that different to any other Party?



And for the past 10years Labour have said 'we aren't the Labour your parents used to vote for...but we aren't Tories either...honest...really...see this wet, see this dry.'