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

Not that I've ever heard.

I mentioned him because it raises the point about what constitutes legitimate dissent. What was his mandate for attempting to kill an elected politician. What would we have thought of him at the time? How about now, with hindsight?

(Have I just violated Godwin's Law )

Now consider...maybe anti-fascists don't trust the instincts of the more naive members of society re Griffin and Irving. What evidence is anyone offering they their sort can be stopped by civilised debate?

I can accept that freedom of speech is A Good Idea - in principle. I'm just not sure I can summon up the enthusiasm to uphold it in all cases. My bad.

What about Lenin*? Should someone have assassinated him in Finland?

Why is Communism sniggered at but Fascism is regarded as the boogeyman? Both are flawed ideologies that subjugate the individual, both have been responsible for the deaths of tens of millions. In fact, going by body count, Communism is by far the greater evil.

Is it because Communism is something people grow out of but Fascism is something people can grow into?

*Can't believe no-one has done a Guide Entry on him!

It's a valid point.

I would have said that Lenin was less obviously a nascent tyrant. Where was his 'Mein Kampf'? (Granted, he could be pretty savage when it came to internal party disputes) There is a plausible argument that that Soviet tyranny kicked off with the paranoia of the civil war and the incompetence of collectivisation. And Jung Chang makes a good case for Mao's famines being due to a self-serving and incompetent wish to please Stalin...All a lot harder to see coming than an ideology which specifically targetted the Jews.

But I agree. It's difficult. And that's kinda my point.

Really, I'm trying to unravel the god of Freedom of Speech. Do we mean:
- An intolerance of laws that punish thoughts or words?
- Active encouragement and support for opinions we believe to be harmful ?

btw - I've always liked that statue of Lenin hailing a taxi outside the Finland station. You know the one? http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/18/a5/07/lenin-statue.jpg

Mornin Edward


<< Really, I'm trying to unravel the god of Freedom of Speech. Do we mean:
- An intolerance of laws that punish thoughts or words?
- Active encouragement and support for opinions we believe to be harmful ? >>

Isn't a tad simpler? Surely Free Speech means that you allow someone to discuss subject you either do not like, or strongly oppose? Without it HooToo would have been closed on many occasions in the past, but The Mods filter out the'illegal' bits which we all agree when calmer, where perhaps OTT.

The views of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan etc all prevailed in their time because there was not the technical ability to broadcast their insanities until they were already entrenched in gullible minds.

Novo

>>Isn't a tad simpler? Surely Free Speech means that you allow someone to discuss subject you either do not like, or strongly oppose? Without it HooToo would have been closed on many occasions in the past, but The Mods filter out the'illegal' bits which we all agree when calmer, where perhaps OTT.

What I'm asking is whether there's a difference between 'support' and 'enable'.

>>The views of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Genghis Khan etc all prevailed in their time because there was not the technical ability to broadcast their insanities until they were already entrenched in gullible minds.

Really? Genghis Khan aside...did they not succeed precisely *because* of mass communications? Railways in the case of Lenin, cinema and radio in the case of the others. Those technologies were equally available to their opponents.

(Genghis Khan wan't putting forward a political ideology in any case. His success was down to superior equestrian and toxophilogical technology. Yer Mongolian hordes were unlikely to be stopped through reasoned arguement. )

So do we support the following forms of free speech:-

Slandering someone?
Inciting someone to assault or murder someone?
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater?
Bigging up shares you have secretly bought in a national newspaper?

Does anyone really think that "Free" speech should mean you can do these things with impunity?

If not then I suggest you already accept there must be some limitations on free speech and the rest is just quibbling about the degree.....

Indeed. My point is that it's easy to say the words, and to make a god of them...but what do we mean by them? What do we really want, in terms of outcome?

Do I think that political parties should be proscribed? No - unless the carry out such illegal acts as violence, intimidation or incitement.

Do I think a plurailty of views is healthy? Absolutely!

Do I feel it a great loss to political debate if I don't get to hear certain voices in a convenient location? (say, an Oxford debating chamber?) No - I'm sure they have their own meetings, leaflets etc. that I'm free to seek out if interested.

So how damaged would our society have been if an acknowledged racist and anti-semite and a convicted inciter of racial hatred (note to Mods: these statements are not libellous) had been prevented from speaking? In practical terms?



Incidentally...

"Last month the Oxford Union cancelled a debate involving Norman Finkelstein, a US Jewish academic who is critical of Israeli policies towards the Palestinians. Human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell withdrew from the Israel-Palestine conflict debate, saying it lacked "any credibility or legitimacy".

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/farright/story/0,,2217589,00.html?79%3A+Uk+latest

One thing to bear in mind when thinking about freedom of speech and the possibility of defeating the likes of the BNP in open and fair debate rather than silencing them is that open and fair debate requires a level of honesty and fair dealing that isn't to be found among extremists. Put simply, they're liars.

I know that all politicians spin, but there's a big difference between spin and the kind of lies, exaggerations, cherry picking, and distorted half-truths that you get from extremists (though the Daily Hate represents some kind of mid-point, I suppose). A lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has even got its boots on.

And it's not easy to win debates against liars unless you can prove that they're lying. And in order to do that, you need to know what lies they're going to produce in advance. If some blackshirt in a suit makes some claim about huge rises in crime in area x being down to immigrant group y, it's impossible to disprove on the spot. You can accuse him of lying and spouting fascist propaganda, and he will counter-accuse about a conspiracy of silence, liberal media etc.

Who wins that debate? Well, no-one. People leave with whatever prejudices they came with, mostly.

I'm not saying that we should necessarily deny freedom of speech to the illiberal, but what I am saying is that whatever freedom of speech is granted must be accompanied by a commitment to the truth. You can have legitimate political differences over agreed facts and have a debate, but you can't debate if your "facts" are made up. The truth won't always out.

A small contribution to the discussion from this morning's leaders in the Independent:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/article3223651.ece

It took him a long time and a lot of blustering before he admitted he'd spoken like an idiot.

Here's another side of freedom.

This guy is acquitted of breaking a restraining order - so the government says its "disappointed" and slaps another one on him.

Which naturally nobody can talk about because the conditions of the restraining order are subject to secracy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7144426.stm

Well...no surprises from a government which signed up to the HRA in its early days and has ever since been talking about 'abbrogating'. When anyone talks about limiting the *very basic* freedoms in the HRA, we should be Very Afraid Indeed.

Do you know I think my spelling is getting worse.