Free Speech ?

[Javelin]

Watching Question Time on BBC tv last night raised an interesting question about 'Free Speech' in a democracy.

Should people with abhorrent views, such as the BNP or Geert Wilders (Anti-Islam Dutch MP who's made a film about Islam) be banned from appearing on tv or should they be allowed to take part in public debates and thus allow their views to be challenged by others, and show how vile, racist and stupid these people really are.

What do you think?

(This thread is about the concept of free speech, and not a discussion about the BNP/Geert Wilders specifically)

[pear]

The phrase that springs to mind is "give them enough rope and they will hang themselves..."

A lot of the BNPs makeup is how they're somehow hard done by, and there is a conspiracy to shut them up and silence them because somehow - the truth is too dangerous for us to hear.

I'm all for them being on TV, as I think their version of truth is hilariously idiotic and sick, and the more people that actually hear their stupidity the less people will vote for them, and the loss of their 'everyone is suppressing our rights' canard will hurt them a lot, plus the more time Nick Griffin is on stage the more people will see him for what he is - a loathsome reptile of a man, twisted and inarticulate and sick inside.

The terminally thick may still vote for them anyway, but then they're terminally thick - so you're never going to get sense into their heads

[Random Aussie]

The idea is that the population is intelligent enough to make it's own decisions.

[Hash]

I believe in free speech up to a point.

People should be allowed to have opinions, however ridiculous those opinions are. They should be allowed to publicly state those opinions and people should be allowed to challenge them.....and this applies to everything (religion, politics, economics, sport, society etc).

Where the free speech must end is where it starts to incite violence or hatred.

[Javelin]

There appears to a fine dividing line between the merits of one versus the other.

On the one hand, if these vile creatures were ignored by the media, then they would not get free publicity, and therefore instead of being able to spout their garbage, cloaked up in nice appearing sound-bites, to millions of viewers and listeners accross the nation, all they would have is a handful of like-minded thugs, standing on street corners, that they preach to.
With millions viewing and listening, even a minute percentage of idiots sympathetic to their views can translate into hundreds of thousands of potential new recruits.

On the other hand, as has been said, without being challenged and shown up to be total morons, the general public might be taken by in their publicity.

[chacha kashmiri]

There's a good analogy someone used to tell me about free speech, try insulting someones mother and see how much in favour they remain of free speech

[Robert]

Originally Posted by pear loathsome reptile of a man, twisted and inarticulate and sick inside.

Hitler was those things, but articulate. I think Griffin is more articulate than you think. He'll appeal to people's gut instinct rather than their morals and intellect, and therein lies the danger.

[chacha kashmiri]

I think the only reason griffin is disliked by the political elite is because of his working clas background, if he came from eton and showed live links to bono at his conferences, he would probably be welcomed with open arms.

[mindless slogging]

Originally Posted by Random Aussie The idea is that the population is intelligent enough to make it's own decisions.

That should be the idea but it isn't always the case.

This is what I heard from Chomsky:

I mean, we’re very lucky that we have never had an honest demagogue. I mean, the demagogues we’ve had are so corrupt that they never got anywhere—you know, Nixon, McCarthy, you know, Jimmy Swaggart and others. So they were kind of destroyed by their own corruption. But suppose we had an honest demagogue, you know, a Hitler type, who was not corrupt. There’s probably—it could be unpleasant. There’s a background of concern and fear, tremendous fear, and searching for some answer, which they’re not getting from the establishment. “Who’s responsible for my plight?” You know, and that can be exploited. And unless there’s active, effective organizing and education, it’s dangerous.

That is essentially the problem. Victory for any racist 'party' is simply being elected, and with an ever lower demeanor of politicians currently in power, this could be viable option. Having said that Nick Griffin is an absolute idiot. He would never have made it anywhere. No-one would fall for him.

[12thMan]

There is nothing called free speech. Every country or society says what is allowed or not and the rules change.

UK has a lot more free speech than Pakistan. People may shout media is free in Pakistan but speech is not free. They have laws for people and media doesn't deal with daily stuff or what you can say and media knows what they can say nor argue as that is their living

[Savak]

Free Speech all the way completely along with a combination of respect for all other external factors and stakeholders and diplomacy