Free Speech

[SwirlyGates]

A lot of the issues on this forum are about not just the decimation of women's rights, but the right to say what we think, to stand up for our rights in public, whether at work or amongst friends, and to have these views aired in the media without cries of "transphobia" and attempts to shut us down. Even worse, people are getting arrested, fined, even put in prison just for saying that trans-identifying men are men.

But a few years ago I complained to a local radio station after the presenter said, "Well, maybe Enoch Powell was right."

I'm trying to get my thoughts straight about this, and I'd like to know your opinions.

I think the main issue for me was that the Enoch Powell lover was just presenting a normal radio show, with songs and ads, and he just threw this in as a random opinion. I would have no problem with a discussion of Enoch Powell's views - in fact, I seem to recall there was a TV programme about him recently, in which they condemned him but said his opinions were too horrendous to repeat, and I thought this was ludicrous. Surely, if you're going to condemn someone, you have to be able to say why.

What do you think? Is there a time or a place when free speech is not acceptable? (I'm not talking about inciting violence, but stating views.) If so, what are the limits?

I think context is everything when it comes to free speech. I think, as a general principle, people should be allowed to express racist views. It's not something that should be against the law. On the other hand, I don't think a teacher should be allowed to express racist views in the classroom. I'd also have strong reservations about a teacher expressing racist views anywhere, including social media. After all, do you want a racist teaching kids?

I think there are a number of very grey areas, though.

A while back a friend of mine linked this to me via social media.
It's an Interview on the BBC from 1967 where David Frost interviews Oswald Mosley in front of a live studio audience. It's a remarkable piece of history.

I knew Oswald Mosley was "bad", brown shirts, etc.. but I didn't really know anything about him at all. Watching the interview gave me a huge amount of insight in understanding why I'd been told he was bad. People can tell you things, but there's nothing as informative as seeing it for yourself.

I'll link the interview below. If like me you knew nothing about him, it really does explain what an absolute dangerous nut case he was. He's sat in the studio being interviewed by Frost, the audience are holding his feet to the fire. Bear in mind this was the BBC in the 1960s, by the standards of the time this interview was practically a riot in the studio. At 29.29 in the video below, they show footage during the interview of Mosley speaking. It's jaw dropping. People get called Nazis all the time today, but that footage at 29.29, yeah that's when you get to call someon a Nazi and it's not hyperbole.

To link this back to your post @SwirlyGates
By seeing this interview I properly understood how bad Mosley really was. It wasn't just people saying it, I saw for myself. This is why we need free speech. I can see people being uncomfortable about watching Mosley, being uncomfortable about others choosing to watch Mosley being interviewed. But for me it was very important, and I now understand something I didn't before.
Free speech is important. It lets us see for ourselves what the other person said, how they said it, why they said it, and make our own minds up.
If some idiot wants to speak out to prove how much of an idiots he is, let him, record it, preserve it, let everyone see. Keep it for history so people in the future can see for themselves. It's really important that we know what these people think.

In the modern context of this forum we have Project Let Them Speak. It's the same thing. Let everyone know just exactly what these people think, say, and the violence and intimidation they use to try and force their way. I want everyone to see it. It doesn't reflect well on them.

If anyone wants to watch it, link here. If you don't want to watch the whole thing skip to 29.29 and you'll understand everything you need to know about who Oswald Mosley was.

@SerendipityJane
Jeeze they look so young, and less well cushioned there.
That was Not The 9 O'Clock news yes?

That's exactly the right approach. Mockery. There's nothing more inflated egos hate than mockery and derision.
I was shocked by those newspaper quotes they read out.

I'm not an absolute free speech advocate. When I was young in N. Ireland I naively thought people would stop following Ian Paisley as the truth about him and his cronies came out. if anything he got more followers

Hurrah for the blackshirts !

(Yes, it was NTNOCN - because I am old enough to not only remember Oswald Mosely shuffling off his mortal coil, but my DMs thoughts on what an odious man he was.)

Luckily we don't have free speech in the UK, so it's nothing to worry about.

Perhaps a good starting point is to make a distinction between situations where there is scope for challenge and reply between equals, and situations where there is a power imbalance and an assumption of authority.

A teacher promoting racist ideas in class is at an advantage over the children, both because the teacher is the one who is supposed to know what's what, and because they can make life very difficult for dissenters.

A discussion or debate, on TV or YouTube or in the flesh - between people with opposing views is fine even if the views are obnoxious, so long as it isn't conducted in a way that skews the outcome (biased chairing, audience packed with one side's supporters etc). Operation let them speak and get their arse handed to them in public. All good.

I'm a bit wary about the policing of people's personal social media in order to use it against them at work. Where do you draw the line? "I wouldn't want my kids taught by a racist" sounds reasonable; at least racism is definitely contrary to equality law. But what about "I wouldn't want my kids taught by somebody Far Right" ... "by anybody right wing" ... by a Tory voter"....? Bearing in mind that if the political wind changes, but it's still acceptable to police social media, that could become "by a Communist"... "by a loony Leftie"... " by anyone who votes Labour."

The Mosley interview shows that free speech can be had, provided you have someone to place it in context.

In using his free speech, Mosley exposes himself as an anti-Semitic Nazi sympathiser and Holocaust denier - by letting him speak and keeping context in place, Frost cleverly let the old bigot show himself for what he really was.

I cannot help but think if Mosley was still alive and the BBC had him on again today it would go something like this:

Inshallah, welcome my friend. Tell us about what the dirty Jews have been up to.....

How the mighty have fallen.

Do we have the journalists and presenters nowadays who could do this? I wonder sometimes.

Cross post @lechiffre55 !

He also comes over as being on the side of Fascists in general, saying that the bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima 'when the war was over'.

When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the war was still raging in Asia, and people were dying in their tens of thousands every week, many of them of hunger, due to the economic collapse overseen by the Imperial Japanese Army.

Yes, that was bizarre.

Of course we have free speech, we just don’t have free speech without consequence.

There's a reason the Free Speech Union exist and it's because the concept of free speech is being eroded at an alarming rate in the UK, particularly in Scotland.

Maybe it's because I'm getting old, but I'm becoming more and more of a free speech absolutist these days.

If the government can punish someone for speech, it isnt free speech.

Yes, but I don't think it's right to demand that we only allow "wrong 'uns" to speak if their speech is put in context/challenged by someone more enlightened. Who can make it clear to all the numties what is wrong with said wrong'un.

If some actual Nazi wants a radio show or to speak out on a corner or whatever, then I think that needs to be allowed. And it becomes the responsibility of those who oppose those views to also get out there and speak. And then the other fellow also is within his rights to respond to those criticisms.

Can it be problematic? Sure. Is there a better way - not at all. Not without creating massive risks of another kind.

OP - I'm, like a pp, more of a free speech absolutist the older I get.

I do think there are settings where some speech is more or less appropriate. In particular, in order to have a secular society, there are places we designate as neutral places, in terms of politics in particular.

I do think there needs to be a pretty hard line between employees personal ad private views, even if they appear on social media, or a letter to the editor, and their work persona. I think the idea that having unpopular views means you could get fired is a real damper on free speech - just like when people used to lose their job for voting wrong.

Many workplaces do this, sometimes in a mild way, sometimes in a strict way. This allows all kinds of people to work together.

Schools are another. Libraries, certain kinds of institutional spaces. Health institutions. This is partly a matter of trust, if institutions like this seem to have views of their own, it erodes the trust of the citizens and they can't fulfil their role effectivly. Figuring out what counts as a "neutral" viewpoint is very tricky but it's important to try to embody this principle.

Yes I had a wee chuckle

Death threats should face no consequence?

You said it better than I could.

There used to be quite a clear understanding that in the work place you didn't discuss politics, religion, or football, and in my part of the world, taking about one of those would peg you for the other two pretty quickly.

I think employees should be able to have a life outside of work, and should not be beholden to corporate social media policies in their private capacity. If someone cannot do their job, discipline then for that. Don't discipline them for what amounts to thought crime or on the basis of what they might do at some point in future.

When is a death threat a death threat? What actually counts as "inciting" hatred? There are some very blurry lines here with no consistency of approach and that is what is not clear.

Rubbish take.

Great analysis, maze.