Yet again freedom of speech is under attack.
You may not agree with South Park, but the fact that it is broadcast is a good indicator that television programme makers are free to make and broadcast programmes saying whatever they like.
Let's not sit quiet when the freedoms we love and cherish and which form the foundations of our society come under attack. If we sit quiet we know it will be taken from us. Freedom's are not free, they come with a cost; but the price people pay when freedoms are removed is always greater.
This is a snippet of the episode in question:
Video H/T: Calling England
Showing posts with label Freedom Of Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freedom Of Speech. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Islam4UK Ban
I don’t know all of the in’s and out’s about the group Islam4UK but from what I have seen and read in the news their agenda is not one I agree with, and should they ever have any real influence they would have me very worried.
You may not think me right about this post, nor will this win me any new friends but I am more worried by the ban than what they have to say. So far as I know, the members of this group have not been convicted of any terrorist crimes. And so banning them in the UK leaves me with an uneasy feeling. Perhaps I have missed a crucial detail here, but I am not seeing it.
If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must recognise that the bedrock of our society is rooted in our freedoms and freedom of speech is one of those, perhaps even the most important. Those people who hate our way of life, including Islam4UK are showing us up as hypocritical for purporting to defend freedom of speech then banning the messages that we don’t want to hear.
If Islam4UK is telling lies that prosecute them for libel or slander and get a court injunction silencing them; if they are engaged in acts conspiring and plotting murder then arrest them on terrorism charges, and then ban them then. I no more want to see or hear from them than I assume my readers do, but hearing what we don’t want to hear is the price we must pay for free speech, the alternatives to having free speech can be witnessed around the world today and many times over in history books and journals and they carry a much, much, higher price to ordinary, everyday people than having to listen to unpleasant things. For the genuinely crazed and loony’s there are already laws to shut them up and if necessary remove them from society.
The government seems to have put all parties concerned into a corner here whereby it [seemingly] has no recourse on criminal grounds to press charges, nor has to bring a suit in civil court which would silence them and so has decided that it should therefore censor what it finds distasteful. This is yet more dangerous ground for the state to be seizing over its citizens and lends an unneeded precedent in future to other acts of censorship.
Remember also, that free speech works both ways – those who use it to provoke and avail themselves of such a freedom, like Islam4UK should also be aware and prepared to hear what others think of them.
You may not think me right about this post, nor will this win me any new friends but I am more worried by the ban than what they have to say. So far as I know, the members of this group have not been convicted of any terrorist crimes. And so banning them in the UK leaves me with an uneasy feeling. Perhaps I have missed a crucial detail here, but I am not seeing it.
If we are to survive as a free democracy, then we must recognise that the bedrock of our society is rooted in our freedoms and freedom of speech is one of those, perhaps even the most important. Those people who hate our way of life, including Islam4UK are showing us up as hypocritical for purporting to defend freedom of speech then banning the messages that we don’t want to hear.
If Islam4UK is telling lies that prosecute them for libel or slander and get a court injunction silencing them; if they are engaged in acts conspiring and plotting murder then arrest them on terrorism charges, and then ban them then. I no more want to see or hear from them than I assume my readers do, but hearing what we don’t want to hear is the price we must pay for free speech, the alternatives to having free speech can be witnessed around the world today and many times over in history books and journals and they carry a much, much, higher price to ordinary, everyday people than having to listen to unpleasant things. For the genuinely crazed and loony’s there are already laws to shut them up and if necessary remove them from society.
The government seems to have put all parties concerned into a corner here whereby it [seemingly] has no recourse on criminal grounds to press charges, nor has to bring a suit in civil court which would silence them and so has decided that it should therefore censor what it finds distasteful. This is yet more dangerous ground for the state to be seizing over its citizens and lends an unneeded precedent in future to other acts of censorship.
Remember also, that free speech works both ways – those who use it to provoke and avail themselves of such a freedom, like Islam4UK should also be aware and prepared to hear what others think of them.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
BNP On Question Time
I am a supporter of Freedom of Speech, and I happen to think that it is essential to a free society that people be allowed to express themselves freely. With curbs at law allowing compensation for such things as slander, on the whole we, in principle at least, have a reasonable and decent set up. Yes, the walls have been closing in quite a bit in the last few years, but I think this has been broadly acknowledged, and as soon as this particular Government is ousted I believe on this issue under the Conservatives we can return to a normal debate and square some of those issues away.
As Newton pointed out, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Though this is a law of physics, it can sometimes be applied to situations in our lives. To allow for Freedom of Speech there is a cost or in this analogy opposite reaction, which is that we don't just then hear what we want to hear. We have to allow for the fact that people are going to have opinions vastly different to yours and mine and that those opinions may well cause offence.
The equal reaction is that The BNP, and in this case Nick Griffin is also subject to this and he will have to hear what those of us who do not support the BNP have to say. I think it is right that the BNP have their say, as much as I disagree with them it is the price of free speech and one I am glad to pay. And on this score the BBC are right to have allowed Mr Griffin onto their flagship politics show.
If you cannot allow for this, even broadly, then I do not think you can really be a advocate for free speech.
I hope that the fellow panel members take the full opportunity to debate Griffin on TV. Over one million people voted BNP at the EU elections, and I wonder how many of them have actually heard Nick Griffin speak on TV or Radio? I would wager not that many; certainly a low percentage considering he is a party political leader. The concerns expressed by those who do not want the BNP on TV are that he will be "recruiting" - as if National Socialism and Racism were some unstoppable irresistible force that must not be allowed into people's ears. I just do not understand this rationale. Informed debate and giving people ALL of the facts is what is needed, and the mainstream political parties need to get better at doing that, even if it means we learn more about them than they don't like. Let people hear what he has to say, it may turn out that instead of recruiting new people those that did vote BNP may now not do so again in the future.
I know Jack Straw and Chris Huhne are due to appear, and they will need to up their game for this. I am not sure who the other two panellists will be*, I hope someone from the conservatives and someone from the centre-right press. Question Time does tend to swing four lefties to one centre-right panellist many weeks, so tonight may well be no different on that score.
I happen to think that if the panel spend an hour screeming "raaaacist!" in Nick Griffins direction, they will themselves not come off too well. In my opinion, they should try to draw out some opinions and policies that go beyond what will have been rehearsed off screen prior to an apperance, and then look for an opportunity to explain how poor those policies and opinions are, and how they would adversly affect the country and the people that live here if widely implemented.
I also just want to say that despite my absence from the B-BBC live blog in recent weeks (due to the unseemly time I have to get up these days, QT is on when I am usually in bed) and though I will be annoying the wife, I am going to make the extra effort to be there tonight so we can deliver our own collectively unique commentary on events. I would urge others who would like to join to be there early, as the unmoderated slots will go quickly.
*If you know who these panellists are, can you let me know in the comments, I did look on the QT webpage but it is not listed.
As Newton pointed out, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Though this is a law of physics, it can sometimes be applied to situations in our lives. To allow for Freedom of Speech there is a cost or in this analogy opposite reaction, which is that we don't just then hear what we want to hear. We have to allow for the fact that people are going to have opinions vastly different to yours and mine and that those opinions may well cause offence.
The equal reaction is that The BNP, and in this case Nick Griffin is also subject to this and he will have to hear what those of us who do not support the BNP have to say. I think it is right that the BNP have their say, as much as I disagree with them it is the price of free speech and one I am glad to pay. And on this score the BBC are right to have allowed Mr Griffin onto their flagship politics show.
If you cannot allow for this, even broadly, then I do not think you can really be a advocate for free speech.
I hope that the fellow panel members take the full opportunity to debate Griffin on TV. Over one million people voted BNP at the EU elections, and I wonder how many of them have actually heard Nick Griffin speak on TV or Radio? I would wager not that many; certainly a low percentage considering he is a party political leader. The concerns expressed by those who do not want the BNP on TV are that he will be "recruiting" - as if National Socialism and Racism were some unstoppable irresistible force that must not be allowed into people's ears. I just do not understand this rationale. Informed debate and giving people ALL of the facts is what is needed, and the mainstream political parties need to get better at doing that, even if it means we learn more about them than they don't like. Let people hear what he has to say, it may turn out that instead of recruiting new people those that did vote BNP may now not do so again in the future.
I know Jack Straw and Chris Huhne are due to appear, and they will need to up their game for this. I am not sure who the other two panellists will be*, I hope someone from the conservatives and someone from the centre-right press. Question Time does tend to swing four lefties to one centre-right panellist many weeks, so tonight may well be no different on that score.
I happen to think that if the panel spend an hour screeming "raaaacist!" in Nick Griffins direction, they will themselves not come off too well. In my opinion, they should try to draw out some opinions and policies that go beyond what will have been rehearsed off screen prior to an apperance, and then look for an opportunity to explain how poor those policies and opinions are, and how they would adversly affect the country and the people that live here if widely implemented.
I also just want to say that despite my absence from the B-BBC live blog in recent weeks (due to the unseemly time I have to get up these days, QT is on when I am usually in bed) and though I will be annoying the wife, I am going to make the extra effort to be there tonight so we can deliver our own collectively unique commentary on events. I would urge others who would like to join to be there early, as the unmoderated slots will go quickly.
*If you know who these panellists are, can you let me know in the comments, I did look on the QT webpage but it is not listed.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Interesting Story, Or Not...
I have been reading, or not reading what Carter Ruck is, or is not up to in relation to the Guardian, Parliament and potential questions that may, or may not be asked. Seems while I was asleep last night this all brewed up and the blogosphere found a few juicy questions that may, or may not have been cause for censor. Seems that looking through the order book has revealed that there is still much to pay attention to. A number of different solid theories have been advanced and there may, or may not, or may be supporting documents on Wikileaks, perhaps.
I had a look myself this morning, and I am a little surprised, or not, that nobody thought that this might be the offending enquiry. Though not seriously, perhaps, maybe.
![]()
Perhaps only because this would be more exciting, and movie-esque, or not. I guess we all hit a question we thought it might be... Still I would like to know the answers to these.
I had a look myself this morning, and I am a little surprised, or not, that nobody thought that this might be the offending enquiry. Though not seriously, perhaps, maybe.
Perhaps only because this would be more exciting, and movie-esque, or not. I guess we all hit a question we thought it might be... Still I would like to know the answers to these.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Freedom Of Speech
The Universal Declaration Of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
So, if we look at the world, and in particular the UK this week, have we taken a step closer or a step back from this Universal Declaration?
Let me offer something close to some quotations, for censorship in the UK is not an original tyranny...
For [blogs] are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.
As good almost kill a man as kill a good [blog]: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good [blog], kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were, in the eye.
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the [Internet], we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.
A man may be a heretic in the truth, and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
All Quotes, somewhat updated from John Milton published in a a pamphlet in 1644 promoting the liberty of unlicenced printing called Areopagitica; (not something that could be said out loud at the height of the civil war.)
Freedom of speech should not be curtailed to suit peoples tastes, and preferences. It is in fact an inheritance that has been fought for many times over, and is often squandered. The yolk of totalitarianism is upon us, and we are no longer free to utter words of discontent. Libel laws, do, or at least did not, stifle freedom of expression, but allowed for correction when misinformation occurred. The reason the title and author is listed on the outside of books is so that they could be easily rounded up and destroyed in the event of a successful libel act, in the 1600's.
So I find myself asking, was it necessary to ban an elected official from the EU from coming to this country to talk? I think not. Mr Wilders should have been welcomed to the UK, if only so that those who disagree with him should have been allowed to freely tell him as much, and why they disagree.
Why have three blogs, all critical of the government disappeared in full from the internet? Not blogposts, but entire websites and user profiles. [Lord Elvis, Tractor Stats and Electro Kevin].
And yet again, the lesson is not to be learnt, it has been learned and is written in our history.
First they came for the communists,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
We don't observe history to give school kids something to do. We observe history because it is our chemistry set. It is what we have tried before, it is what worked and what did not work. It is the true measure of people. The avoidance of wars today is rooted in learning the lessons of yesterday.
By what or who's authority are we censored today?
Did you cast a vote for a government promising to quash the voice of opposition? Then why have such actions been carried out using the tools of government, and under the cloak of civil protection?
Do you feel safer now?
We don't always get the government we vote for. And thanks to our current democratic defecits, with the EU, local pfifdoms, and electoral boundary discrepencies we have nothing close to "representative democracy." The apathy of the masses is the fuel of the tyrant. If you can help engage people, and help their views be heard you are helping free speech and democracy. Popular uprising and discontent is the only tool of resistance that can work.
Never doubt that a small, but determined group of citizens can change the world for the better, for it is the only thing that ever has.
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers"
So, if we look at the world, and in particular the UK this week, have we taken a step closer or a step back from this Universal Declaration?
Let me offer something close to some quotations, for censorship in the UK is not an original tyranny...
For [blogs] are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul whose progeny they are; nay, they do preserve as in a vial the purest efficacy and extraction of that living intellect that bred them.
As good almost kill a man as kill a good [blog]: who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God's image; but he who destroys a good [blog], kills reason itself, kills the image of God, as it were, in the eye.
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the [Internet], we do injuriously by licensing and prohibiting misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?
I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue, unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and sees her adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland is to be run for, not without dust and heat.
A man may be a heretic in the truth, and if he believe things only because his pastor says so, or the assembly so determines, without knowing other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes his heresy.
Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.
All Quotes, somewhat updated from John Milton published in a a pamphlet in 1644 promoting the liberty of unlicenced printing called Areopagitica; (not something that could be said out loud at the height of the civil war.)
Freedom of speech should not be curtailed to suit peoples tastes, and preferences. It is in fact an inheritance that has been fought for many times over, and is often squandered. The yolk of totalitarianism is upon us, and we are no longer free to utter words of discontent. Libel laws, do, or at least did not, stifle freedom of expression, but allowed for correction when misinformation occurred. The reason the title and author is listed on the outside of books is so that they could be easily rounded up and destroyed in the event of a successful libel act, in the 1600's.
So I find myself asking, was it necessary to ban an elected official from the EU from coming to this country to talk? I think not. Mr Wilders should have been welcomed to the UK, if only so that those who disagree with him should have been allowed to freely tell him as much, and why they disagree.
Why have three blogs, all critical of the government disappeared in full from the internet? Not blogposts, but entire websites and user profiles. [Lord Elvis, Tractor Stats and Electro Kevin].
And yet again, the lesson is not to be learnt, it has been learned and is written in our history.
First they came for the communists,
And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
We don't observe history to give school kids something to do. We observe history because it is our chemistry set. It is what we have tried before, it is what worked and what did not work. It is the true measure of people. The avoidance of wars today is rooted in learning the lessons of yesterday.
By what or who's authority are we censored today?
Did you cast a vote for a government promising to quash the voice of opposition? Then why have such actions been carried out using the tools of government, and under the cloak of civil protection?
Do you feel safer now?
We don't always get the government we vote for. And thanks to our current democratic defecits, with the EU, local pfifdoms, and electoral boundary discrepencies we have nothing close to "representative democracy." The apathy of the masses is the fuel of the tyrant. If you can help engage people, and help their views be heard you are helping free speech and democracy. Popular uprising and discontent is the only tool of resistance that can work.
Never doubt that a small, but determined group of citizens can change the world for the better, for it is the only thing that ever has.
Internet Censorship
Is the blogosphere being Censored?
In recent days a number of blogs have been "taken down". So far, I can see that Tractor Stats and Electro Kevin have disappeared. Thanks to the comment thread on the post by Obnoxio I have learned a few things about what has been potentially going on.
This article shed some light on who may be behind this.
If we are not free as bloggers to express our opinions and art on the Internet then there is (yet, another) severe problem with our "democracy" in the UK.
In these two examples it isn't blog posts that went missing, it was the entire blog. There are other blogs and other platforms, just because expression is not free, it does not mean it will not be seen and heard.
Freedom of Speech is protected in the Magna Carta and by the UN under article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. I can not know what the stated reason is for these blogs having been taken down, but the reason had better be good or TS and Kevin will have grounds for a counter action. They may also, if they haven't already wish to read this.
For Tractor Stats fans, his work is also showcased here.
Tractor Stats & Electro Kevin will hopefully be back on new platforms. Guys, email me when you are and you will have a link from this blog.
In recent days a number of blogs have been "taken down". So far, I can see that Tractor Stats and Electro Kevin have disappeared. Thanks to the comment thread on the post by Obnoxio I have learned a few things about what has been potentially going on.
This article shed some light on who may be behind this.
If we are not free as bloggers to express our opinions and art on the Internet then there is (yet, another) severe problem with our "democracy" in the UK.
In these two examples it isn't blog posts that went missing, it was the entire blog. There are other blogs and other platforms, just because expression is not free, it does not mean it will not be seen and heard.
Freedom of Speech is protected in the Magna Carta and by the UN under article 19 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. I can not know what the stated reason is for these blogs having been taken down, but the reason had better be good or TS and Kevin will have grounds for a counter action. They may also, if they haven't already wish to read this.
For Tractor Stats fans, his work is also showcased here.
Tractor Stats & Electro Kevin will hopefully be back on new platforms. Guys, email me when you are and you will have a link from this blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)