"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.
I'm not so much defending what Lionheart, the English blogger, is writing, as defending his right to post it.
ReplyDeleteThat's the point, isn't it?
Either a society has free speech--or it does not.
always on watch, thanks for taking the time to comment.
ReplyDeleteThe 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.)