[LINK] Academics branded 'anti-US over FTA research'

[Craig Sanders]

On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 12:10:33PM +1000, Frank O'Connor wrote:
> At 11:00 AM +1000 on 1/8/06 you wrote:
> >actually, one of the left's major moral strong points (and
> >simultaneously one of their strategic weaknesses) is their willingness
> >to let others have their say, even if they vehemently disagree with
> >them. it can't be any different, that is one of the things that
> >distinguishes the left from the right...to adopt the same oppressive
> >strategy as the right is to become them.
> 
> Not in any history I've read. The left has a long tradition of 
> stifling free speech, just as long as the right.
> 
> Fascist or communist, capitalist or socialist, conservative or 
> radical ... it makes no difference. Free speech is generally viewed 
> by those in power, by fanatics pushing viewpoints, by political 
> luminaries of whatever persuasion, or whoever has a 'position to 
> protect' - as a threat.
> 
> You'll find various luminaries from all these viewpoints noisily 
> protesting their committed adherence to free speech ... but that's 
> generally just gas and wind.

there's a long history of oppressive fascists exploiting the left to
gain power. the fact that they can mouth a few lefty-sounding sentiments
doesn't mean that they're left wing.

if you're not in favour of universal civil liberties such as free speech
and other human rights, then you aren't a lefty, no matter how you label
yourself. it's one of the defining characteristics of what it is to be
"left". it's not unique to the left, but it's a requirement to be left.


> >i disagree with nearly everything you've said on this topic so far.
> >i don't, however, dispute your right to say it. you are entitled to
> >be wrong, entitled to be misguided, even entitled to lie through your
> >teeth (although there may be social and/or legal consequences to being
> >caught out at the latter - perjury, fraud, deception etc are, or can be,
> crimes).
> 
> Social, legal and other consequences  are irrelevant to free speech 

mostly. laws against specific kinds of speech that don't directly
involve other crimes (e.g. fraud, misleading advertising, etc) are
definitely a free speech issue.

for example, laws against 'hate speech' are bogus and oppressive.
actually beating the crap out of someone is a crime. directly inciting,
instructing, inducing or ordering someone to harm or kill a specific
person or group of persons is, or can be, a crime depending on
circumstances. but merely being offensive and saying "i dont like <some
particular group> because of <some complete load of bullshit>" is not
and should not be a crime.



> ... and phrasing your reply in the manner you have done could 
> probably be regarded as an attack on free speech.
>
> As soon as derogatory terms or phrases like 'all right thinking 
> people' or 'liars' or whatever are aired you attack the Man rather 
> than the argument or debate ... and could very easily be criticised 
> for stifling freedom of speech.

no, that's bullshit. that's the language of censors. the right to free
speech means that not only can i say whatever i want, i can say it in
whatever manner i want.

the right to free speech also does not include the right to demand
respect for your opinions.  in fact, feeling or expressing contempt
for objectionable viewpoints is entirely consistent with free speech. 

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>           (part time cyborg)