Comments on: A quick note on free speech

By: John B

John B — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:22:33 +0000

Hmm. I agree with JSM and you about the tyranny of the general opinion, but I don’t think you can sensibly get from there to a Right To Be Taken Seriously, which is pretty much what Parris implies the BNP ought to get.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:16:36 +0000

Bit of a Millian liberalism FAIL here, John? There are some days when I think I’m the only person who read the passage about the tyranny of the general opinion and the perception that something “just isn’t done” being a far more effective tool of censorship than state violence.

By: Neil

Neil — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:16:07 +0000

If victim cards existed, let alone worked, Gordon Brown would be the most popular politician ever, given the full deck he’s earned from our ever-noble right-wing commentariat.

By: John B

John B — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:34:53 +0000

In which case, you weren’t making a point – or at least, not a relevant one.

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 11:30:32 +0000

You missed the point I was making too, it seems, since it had nothing whatsoever to do with whether a cross on a ballot paper gave you the right to be on telly…

By: John B

John B — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:50:02 +0000

@JuliaM: I missed the law, or the definition of free speech, under which “some idiots made a cross by your name” means “you have the right to be on telly”. Perhaps you could direct me to it?

By: JuliaM

JuliaM — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:47:58 +0000

“…in this case, the editors of Question Time did make a decision: that Nick Griffin was a man who should be on Question Time. The same week, they decided that me, Mr Parris and Mr Eugenides were all not people who should be on Question Time.”

You expect your readers not to notice that neither you, Mr E nor Matthew Parris are elected representatives, unlike Griffin, do you?

“What has changed is that the BNP have one victim card less.”

Sadly, they’ve gained another in its place, as a result of the mishandling of the questioning.

By: Dave Weeden

Dave Weeden — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 16:44:34 +0000

John, I agree with your definition of free speech, which I find an awful lot of people get wrong. But I also agree with Mr Eugenides above.

BTW, as far as I can tell, the people who supported Griffin before, still support him; and those who didn’t, don’t now. What has changed is that the BNP have one victim card less. We proved that we’re[1] not afraid of opinions we don’t like. WIN. And Griffin has shown that that he’s shifty and will deny anything, even stuff he’s been filmed saying.

[1] We doesn’t include Peter Hain, obviously.

PS You’re not going to start _posting_ again are you?

By: Mr Eugenides

Mr Eugenides — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 15:38:30 +0000

John,

I’m not claiming that Griffin has any sort of “right” to appear on an invitational political discussion show, any more than the leader of any other fringe group.

What I’m saying is that while the BBC have the right to invite, or not, anyone they see fit, they should not (in my view) blackball a legal party because their views are “unacceptable”. These sorts of editorial decisions have many facets but a subjective adjudication of the merits of the parties’ policies should not be among them.

I’m also saying that, where in doubt, I am much, much happier with a wide interpretation of who can be invited on than a narrow, restrictive one, for all the obvious freedom of speech issues.

Most of the objections that I’ve heard to Griffin’s appearance seem to be based on a concern about either (a) legitimising, or (b) giving a boost in electoral or membership terms, to the BNP. Even if there is a risk of both of these effects happening, neither of these are properly the BBC’s concern. And, that decision having been taken, it is not in my view appropriate for politicians to start applying pressure to reverse it.