I'm all for freedom of speech,
no matter how offensive , bigoted and obnoxious it is, look at the David Irving /Nick griffin thing at the Union the other night. They're racist bigoted fucks, but that is their right, and I couldn't possibly see mtself criticising myself or them for their shitty views.
Freedom of speech is not for nice things; it's for views whish we may find offensive and nasty. I hope that the more enlightened members of the |union gave them a bloody good mouthful; respect someones views yes, but don't have to believe in them.
(Bear Pookie The Frankly Challenged. Halloween is coming to town., Tue 27 Nov 2007, 7:59, 8 replies)

huh?
"I couldn't possibly see m[y?]self criticising myself or them for their shitty views".

Really? Not only inconsistent ("shitty" looks like a criticism to me), but intellectually spineless as well. Noone has a right to any view*; none is, nor ought to be, immune from criticism.

* That's not the same as saying that anyone else has a right to shut them up, though: noone has any rights at all because there's NO SUCH THING. There are duties and virtues; ostensible rights were cooked up much later and don't really add anything beyond whininess.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 9:18, closed)

Debate
Surely we live in a better society than envisaged by Nick Griffin and several tens of thousands of Holocaust survivors would be able to shoot David Irving's statements down in flames?

Why don't we debate these guys? Extremism always seems to falter under the scrutiny of rationale.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 27 Nov 2007, 9:27, closed)

PJM
Well, it ought to. But it doesn't: that's the problem. People are not rational and disinterested debators: they are emotional, liable to the confirmation fallacy, and so on. Hence your optimistic faith in reason isn't reliable - which is a shame, because, although it's the best we have.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 9:33, closed)

Enzyme
The alternative is censorship... Which is something I'm very uncomfortable with as it effectively drives the debate underground.

Democracy should be about open debate, but it so often isn't. We are deluged with rhetoric day after day from our elected representitives, so it's no wonder that extremism can continue to flourish when open and reasoned debate is actively discouraged all round.

That may sound like a damning indictment of the existing system and yes, it is. We are seeing fewer and fewer people exercising their right to vote because they feel disenfranchised and disillusioned, under these conditions extremism does indeed appeal to masses who feel the same way.

Get these people into the debating halls I say, let them say their piece. Then let's hear the counter arguements. Does hearing what Nick Griffin have to say encourage me to vote BNP? Hell no. Does selective censorship bother me? Hell yes.
(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Tue 27 Nov 2007, 10:07, closed)

PJM
Well, I have serious misgivings about democracy - at least, I'm unsure about majoritarian electoral democracy - so that particular point kinda bounces off me.

The censorship point strikes me as presenting a false dichotomy - I don't see why it has to be the case that you can have censorship or licence and no other option. I don't know what that other option would be or how it would work, but I that doesn't validate the dichotomy.

I agree with you that reasoned debate ought to be sufficient to flush out idiocy. But the problem, again, is that speakers are not rational and neither are listeners - notwithstanding that there are PoMo objections to the centrality of reason in the first place. (These objections fail, but they aren't crazy.) People do not vote for rational reasons, or decide their opinions for rational reasons (which is partly why I distrust electoral democracy). The position that you take is rather like that of Mill in "On Liberty". I would like to share your optimism... but I don't. Nor do I have any easy solutions. Wish I did.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 10:19, closed)

^This
And as I said in another post, it is an unfortunate truth that making sure that people like Nick Griffin do not have a platform to put forward their views is a viable way of stopping them - it worked against Oswald Mosley.
(jizzools, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 11:35, closed)

I
don't really get the "intellectually spineless comment, sorry?"
(Bear Pookie The Frankly Challenged. Halloween is coming to town., Tue 27 Nov 2007, 15:07, closed)

Teh best thing about Freedom of Speech
is it makes it so easier for you to spot the mad f*&kers in society.
( buffet_the_appetite_slayer ٩(●̮̃•)۶ jacked in to the ICE on, Tue 27 Nov 2007, 15:43, closed)