Saturday, January 5, 2008

Which Needs Protecting:
People's Feelings, or Freedom of Speech?

"First They Came for the English Bloggers" discusses what the author calls blog censorship.

The title is evocative of a poem that starts, "They came for the Communists, and I didn't object - For I wasn't a Communist; " (Martin Niemoller - there's another version, too - more at "The Holocaust History Project"). It isn't quite accurate, though, since bloggers have been detained before, in other countries. For example, Fouad al-Farhan (or Fuad Ahmad Al-Farhan) in Saudi Arabia.

Now, a disclaimer: I'm not so much defending what Lionheart, the English blogger, is writing, as defending his right to post it. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,"* would be putting it a bit strongly: but I do believe that what is happening in England, and in Europe, is very disturbing.

Mr. "Lionheart's" legal status seems to be a very real threat to free speech.

Back in the 1930s, the national socialists in Germany used appeals to national pride and ethnic biases to control their opponents.

It's ironic that "hate speech" laws, intended in part to prevent such appeals to prejudice, may now be used to control opponents of an established order.

Related posts, on censorship, propaganda, and freedom of speech.
*" 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' was his attitude now." S. G. Tallentyre (Evelyn Beatrice Hall), describing the attitude of Voltair toward someone who had, presumably, wronged him.
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

2 comments:

Always On Watch said...

I'm not so much defending what Lionheart, the English blogger, is writing, as defending his right to post it.

That's the point, isn't it?

Either a society has free speech--or it does not.

January 6, 2008 at 6:03 AM
Brian H. Gill said...

always on watch, thanks for taking the time to comment.

The point is, indeed, preserving the right of people to express ideas. However, free speech does not appear to be an either-or concept. I'm aware of no culture, since records have been kept, that had absolute free speech.

The trick is to determine where to draw the line. For example, in today's America,
* There seems to be broad agreement that the creation and distribution of child pornography should be controlled, if not banned (1)
* Attempts to limit who is allowed to speak on behalf of political candidates have, for the most part, not succeeded

Both are "speech," at least in a sense, but while kiddie porn has few supporters, freedom to support a political candidate seems an obviously-necessary right.

There's an interesting discussion of free speech at plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/.

((1) I'm aware that child pornography has its advocates: otherwise it wouldn't exist.)

January 6, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Unique, innovative candles


Visit us online:
Spiral Light Candle  • Find a Retailer
• Spiral Light Candle Store

Blogroll

Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.