hello snoopy...
"Is freedom of speech a principle to be extended to all?"
it should be, but isn't... it doesn't even happen in forums such as this- seen any locked posts recently?
exactly...
if freedom of speech is something which we, as a society, wants, (and I do)then unfortunately we have to allow everyone's voice to be heard, even if what they say is unpalatable to us, even if it is lies, even if it has a negative effect on others...
if we don't allow everyone to speak we will evetually lose something of our own freedoms.
If some ppl lose their voice, then we all will. Somebody somewhere will decide what you are allowed and not allowed to say, what is acceptable, what is not... that might be okay where I live (for now), but... what happens to all those voters who are not Xtian far right in say, the US? What happens to the ppl in China who find the regime harsh and oppressive? What happens to the english teacher who calls the teddy bear Mohammed?
However, I would have hoped that in an educational establishment, especially a high profile one like Oxford, there should be some rule whereby speakers such as these are not allowed onto the platform in the first place.
David Irving and Nick Griffin? On the same stage? But no jewish presence, no opposition, no balance of views presented, at one of the top universities in the country, where our intellectuals are educated... u know, the ppl who will run the country.... somebody phoned them and hired them! they don't come to talk for free- you at least have to provide them with food and accommodation...
of course, that seems contradictory, but it isn't. If you want to deny the holocaust, you should be able to, but I personally would not pay to see it. If you want to have a religious cult, fine, but again, I will not allow you to use my function rooms to hold it.
I can make that decision without curtailing your right to say what you like, surely?
what makes me laugh most of all is...
a few weeks ago (?) a young man was maced in the face during a public lecture, for heckling...last week a young woman was charged under the Terrorism Act for writing jihadi poetry and posting it on forums and having dodgy pals...
so, it's okay to censor this man, who was simply heckling, he wasn't "tooled up", he did not have socks full of semtex, and its okay to censor this woman, who was simply writing poetry, and make her a terrorist, but in the same breath it's also okay to support the lucrative careers of a second rate fascist politician, and a holocaust denier in the same week...
but hang on... its not the same is it?
and it isn't the same because, well, the ordinary man and woman did not use such lyrical nuances, they did not rely on double-speak and pretence, they were quite open about who they were and what they wanted...
David Irving denies the holocaust was as bad as the jews reckoned it was, but hey.. that's okay... because he's an intellectual and sells books... so we have some justification for giving him air time or library shelf space... Nick Griffin will assure everyone who listens that he isn't a racist, he poured over Mein Kampf as a child for more lofty reasons, but it's okay to fund his political party becuase he's a politician... both of them are very careful about what they say, in case they incite ppl to racial hatred, in case somebody films them on their mobiles and sends it into the Daily Mirror, but... we know what they are...
if we ban them, we create press for them... we allow them to justify feeling paranoid and hateful and oppressed, we allow them to exploit this negativity...
much better it is to say... you can say what you like, but don't expect everyone to agree...
my thoughts, at least...
