tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post113913946022160190..comments2024-03-18T08:38:01.678+00:00Comments on The Life And Opinions of Andrew Rilstone: ....and it's good night from himUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141231874017514012006-03-01T16:51:00.000+00:002006-03-01T16:51:00.000+00:001. I meant "it's the the first one".2. Never post ...1. I meant "it's the the first one".<BR/><BR/>2. Never post in haste and irritation.<BR/><BR/>Nite!Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141231795580199072006-03-01T16:49:00.000+00:002006-03-01T16:49:00.000+00:00Are you still up?Clue: It's the second one.Now cou...Are you still up?<BR/><BR/>Clue: It's the second one.<BR/><BR/>Now could someone PLEASE turn off the lights?Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141210428664005102006-03-01T10:53:00.000+00:002006-03-01T10:53:00.000+00:00Even to say “you can talk all that rubbish if you ...<I>Even to say “you can talk all that rubbish if you want but I don’t have to listen” is in a sense a denial of someone’s freedom of speech, in that it makes that freedom quite meaningless.</I><BR/><BR/>Just to reinforce the rather obvious but important point that someone else has already made:<BR/><BR/>No. It isn't, at all. And no it doesn't.<BR/><BR/>Freedom of speech isn't the same as the right to be listened to. It is self-evidently <I>physically impossible</I> for it to be, and anybody who uses it to mean that is just being silly.<BR/><BR/>If I want to preach about the little purple pixies at the bottom of my garden, I'm free to do so - but nobody is obliged to listen, even if I think they should. And if everyone listened to everyone who thought they should be heard - well, we'd all go deaf and mad, and starve.<BR/><BR/>Assuming that "freedom of speech", in any useful sense, is automatically restricted if people have the right not to listen is thus blatantly untrue, and arguing from that basis is just setting up a straw man.Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141207090139494942006-03-01T09:58:00.000+00:002006-03-01T09:58:00.000+00:00This is showing a distinct tendency to get silly…D...This is showing a distinct tendency to get silly…<BR/><BR/><B>Dan Hemmens said... </B><BR/><I>Since Andrew's original post was, in fact, partially about the Government's proposed </I>law<I> banning incitement to religious hatred, it strikes me as a bit foolish to ignore law for the purposes of this discussion. </I><BR/><BR/>Seeing as we all seemed to be in agreement on the subject of legislation, continual talk of it might stretch the definition of ‘discussion’ somewhat, and take it – I would contend - in a direction away from usefulness. Maybe when we were done with that we could then all discuss Holocaust denial by mutually emphasising the weakness in the deniers’ argument in that there actually was one. Me, though, I can’t really see the point.<BR/><BR/><B>I originally said... </B><BR/><I>Say if Nazis wanted to march through an immigrant area of a town. Nazis often peddle the story that everyone really thinks the way they do, save for the conspiracies of the liberal media. A state bar on them marching might feed this. A sizeable counter-mobilisation which blocked them marching might be harder for them to explain away. Would it interfere with their freedom of speech? Well, yes. Do I care? Not much. </I><BR/><BR/><B>… then Dan Hemmens said... </B><BR/><I>Are you honestly telling me that you </I>can't tell the difference<I> between, for example, organising a counter-rally at a Nazi meeting and actually trying to prevent the meeting from taking place by force or legislation? </I><BR/><BR/>Dan’s reply would suggest that he believes WW2 veterans were all suffering from some deficiency of the brain, which prevented them from seeing they could just start up a petition against the occupation of Poland. He might find, on reflection, that I was <I>making the difference</I> between the two things, and suggesting the more active option may at times be valid. “I don’t agree” would be a perfectly credible response. “You’re not saying what I’m saying therefore you can’t understand what I’m saying” is not.<BR/><BR/>These and similar comments suggest to my ever-perceptive senses that this ‘debate’ might have run its course and then some. Dan’s continual misreadings and misrepresentations, which I doubt are wilful, are so endless as to make the whole thing pointless. There is of course something of an irony in someone so fixed on the absolute right of freedom of speech who is simutaneously so unable to do anything approaching listening. But so be it! It only remains for me to say…<BR/><BR/>…nite nite all.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141134338584136002006-02-28T13:45:00.000+00:002006-02-28T13:45:00.000+00:00PS I suspect much of this merely comes down to mut...PS I suspect much of this merely comes down to mutual respect. Those who do not give out that respect cannot expect to receive it.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141133946489366532006-02-28T13:39:00.000+00:002006-02-28T13:39:00.000+00:00Cor lumme guv! Wot a right pea souper! Can anythin...Cor lumme guv! Wot a right pea souper! Can anything be straightened out from this tangled stew of disagreements, miscommunications and tangled associations? Perhaps we should start by eliminating the whole question of extending state power, as we all seem in more or less agreement on that one. There seems a strange lack of people posting here who feel happy and comfortable entrusting their civil liberties into the stewardship of that sincere-looking Mr Blair or that smart-looking Mr Bush, make of that what you will. (I must confess to some wry amusement when Dan Hemmens made this point so forcefully, like it had never come up in the discussion before.) Let’s talk instead about how <I>we</I> exercise freedom of speech.<BR/><BR/>I also feel that ‘what would be your solutions?’ is a reasonable question, but not necessarily a germane one. To pursue a metaphor little-used in this debate so far (not), what about the proverbial guy who shouts fire in a crowded theatre? No not <I>him, </I> the one who says it when there <I>is</I> a fire! Of course it would be better if he knew where all the exits are, but I’d contend he’s still performing a useful service if he doesn’t. Even if there were no exits, I’d personally still like to stay informed about the fire business rather than it just arriving unannounced. Maybe that’s just me… We say “freedom of speech” so often, it’s become kind of like hoisting a flag. I think we tend to stop and ask how the process actually works too little.<BR/><BR/><B>Dan Hemmens said... </B><BR/><BR/><I>You can play the "I understand that everything takes place in context" game until the cows come home, because it doesn't actually get you anywhere. </I><BR/><BR/>Dan at times seems to be having such a good time with the straw man he has (half) named after me that I almost feel I’m intruding to come along and comment on any of it. But let’s at least try to make some sense of this.<BR/><BR/><I>If somebody comes over here and starts spouting offensive and inaccurate comments, you are well within your "rights" to ignore or dismiss them. However I trust that you would not want that person to be prevented, by law or the threat of physical violence, from making offensive and inaccurate comments on message boards. And that's sort of the difference. </I><BR/><BR/>This is the nub of it! As said above, let’s strike out ‘law’ from this. That given, the brief answer is that in certain extreme situations I might well do this. Less likely on message boards, perhaps, and I’d confess I can’t remember the last time I was moved to do this in real life, but I might well do. <BR/><BR/>Say if Nazis wanted to march through an immigrant area of a town. Nazis often peddle the story that everyone really thinks the way they do, save for the conspiracies of the liberal media. A state bar on them marching might feed this. A sizeable counter-mobilisation which blocked them marching might be harder for them to explain away. Would it interfere with their freedom of speech? Well, yes. Do I care? Not much.<BR/><BR/>I’d also suggest most of us operate a kind of sliding scale on this sort of thing. Even to say “you can talk all that rubbish if you want but I don’t have to listen” is in a sense a denial of someone’s freedom of speech, in that it makes that freedom quite meaningless. Upping the ante slightly, if I ran a message board or edited a magazine I would be loathe to keep posted explicitly racist, hate-mongering or (especially) hate-mongering dressed up as non-sensical ‘facts’, as I would consider that aiding and abetting. A magazine that peddled particularly virulent hatred I might even attempt to prevent the distribution of.<BR/><BR/>Of course my preference is towards freedom of speech, if for no other reason than someone might say something I haven’t thought of myself yet. But I do <I>not</I> concur there is some absolute or abstract ‘right’ to it, before which I must kowtow. I would, to varying degrees depending on situation, act against the freedom of speech of certain others at certain times and not lose too much sleep.<BR/><BR/>Clear enough?Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141066664746454902006-02-27T18:57:00.000+00:002006-02-27T18:57:00.000+00:00The point is a minority of people have the technol...<I>The point is a minority of people have the technological means to broadcast much more widely than the rest of us. Dan castigated this point as too obvious. I find it hard to believe you’d disagree with it.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it's true. It's just that, as Dan said, it's basically orthogonal to questions of "freedom of speech". At most, you're just saying that freedom of speech can be abused. Rupert Murdoch abuses it one way; a cash-poor guy who stands outside a mosque or a synagogue shouting racist insults, abuses it another. I don't disagree with that, either.<BR/><BR/>If you want to say that this makes the ideal of freedom of speech a bit messy and difficult in practise, I agree with <I>that</I>, too. It's just that by banging on about any one problem in extreme detail, you mostly just seem intent on sidetracking things.<BR/><BR/><I>…no but he started out with a regional chain of newspapers in Australia. It’s hardly a ‘poor boy made good’ story…</I><BR/><BR/>True enough (again), but then, there are a lot of regional newspaper chains around the world. Not all of their owners turn into dominant multinational media moguls.<BR/><BR/>I don't think it helps underestimating Murdoch's smarts and focus, is all. Actually, I'm not even sure how much of a dyed-in-the-wool conservative he is. His main interest seems to be making and keeping money - which aligns him with conservative causes, inevitably. But where his means end and his ends begin isn't perfectly clear to me.<BR/><BR/><I>The main source of funding for newspapers, even the pay-for ones, is advertising. Newspapers exist primarily to give advertisers what they want.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes; readers.<BR/><BR/>Murdoch goes after them, and his other goals, by taking an essentially conservative line, to be sure. But if the whole UK miraculously converted to the Lib Dems tomorrow, I bet you that Murdoch would tell his papers to hoist the yellow flag the day after.<BR/><BR/><I>And there are several examples of the Murdoch press taking unpopular lines, the Poll Tax, the Gulf War etc.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh, there's not much point in being an evil manipulative bastard tycoon if you don't exploit things occasionally. No fun at all, and worse, no profit.<BR/><BR/>I think that Murdoch wants to promote an essentially conservative political consensus because it keeps his taxes down, and he wants to stay in good with his chums on the American political right (and keep them in power) because it saves him from inconvenient regulation. And if and when that sort of political line clashes seriously with his concern with profits, I think that one can expect to see a certain amount of trimming and tactical withdrawal from his papers.<BR/><BR/>I don't monitor the Sun or the Times these days, but I'd guess that since the Iraq invasion turned into a full-scale political albatross (as opposed to being something which many people hated, but over half the electorate told pollsters they'd support), both have seen their share of prevarication and trimming on the subject.Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1141038649359772832006-02-27T11:10:00.000+00:002006-02-27T11:10:00.000+00:00Dan Hemmens said... You seemed to be implying that...<B>Dan Hemmens said... </B><BR/><BR/><I>You seemed to be implying that, had the Danish Newspaper published their cartoons as part of some high-minded demonstration of their right to freedom of expression, that would be okay, but that because they were actually just having a go at muslims that changes things. It's possible I mininterpreted, but assuming I haven't, I think you're plain wrong. </I><BR/><BR/>No, that’s not what I was saying. Everyone has their agendas, of course. But some are better than others. And, in the current state of affairs, some transmit better than others. I don’t think ‘freedom of speech’ should be used as a smokescreen to cover up those agendas. That’s what I was saying.<BR/><BR/><I>I still don't entirely see your point. Yes, the moneyed and influential are better off than the poor and disenfranchised. This is what I belive some people like to call a "no brainer".</I><BR/><BR/>Well here you <I>are</I> addressing my point! If you’re saying it’s an obvious one, it seems so to me as well. If you’re saying that’s a reason not to engage with it, I’d disagree. By anaology, if we were caught in a fire the flames and smoke and all might make the fire seem hard to miss. I wouldn’t however, dismiss running away from it as too obvious!<BR/><BR/><B>Phil Masters said... </B><BR/><I>Printing presses aren't actually that expensive. Blogs and PCs and megaphones are dirt cheap. The problem isn't shouting loud enough; it's getting people to listen. </I><BR/><BR/>‘Megaphone’ was of course used metaphorically. Personal printers, the things you hook up to PCs, are fairly cheap. Web printing works, the things you print high-run newspapers on, are actually quite expensive. <BR/><BR/>But to be honest this seems to be dragging things down to pedantry. The point is a minority of people have the technological means to broadcast much more widely than the rest of us. Dan castigated this point as too obvious. I find it hard to believe you’d disagree with it.<BR/><BR/><I>I think that Rupert Murdoch is an evil manipulative bastard, but he didn't start out with his current global chain of newspapers…</I><BR/><BR/>…no but he started out with a regional chain of newspapers in Australia. It’s hardly a ‘poor boy made good’ story…<BR/><BR/><I>…and if he used them purely to make unpopular political points, he wouldn't have them today. A lot of his power and wealth comes from giving people what they want. </I><BR/><BR/>The main source of funding for newspapers, even the pay-for ones, is advertising. Newspapers exist primarily to give <I>advertisers</I> what they want. The same is true for most TV stations. And there are several examples of the Murdoch press taking unpopular lines, the Poll Tax, the Gulf War etc. <BR/><BR/><B>Charles Filson said... </B><BR/><I>I'm not really sure what your point is.<BR/><BR/>Are you suggesting that government intervention can equalize all these differences? Or are you suggesting that due to all these differences, putting some areas of speech off-limits is a good idea? </I><BR/><BR/>Nope. As I said (much) earlier I’m very wary of allowing increased government intervention as I always suspect it of leading to ‘mission creep’. But I’m equally wary of kowtowing to some abstract and absolute ‘right’ to free speech, because I think everything happens in a context. The example of Xtian fundies picketing the gay funeral etc. Of course this means I can’t offer a set of firm rules and guidelines to counter yours, so in one sense I don’t have a neatly summarisable ‘point’ in the way you have.<BR/><BR/>To complicate matters still further I’d accept I often operate with a <I>provisional</I> right of free speech. When you post a message here, I’m not about to reply “Charles Filson should multiply with hamsters” or some such and I tend to avoid the message boards where ‘debate’ does get conducted like that. But if someone were to start posting offensive and inaccurate comments (say about Holocaust denial) I might well respond that dismissively. I think we all make the assumption that not everybody is equally worthy of our time.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140863216656619252006-02-25T10:26:00.000+00:002006-02-25T10:26:00.000+00:00I have the right to freedom of speech in much the ...<I>I have the right to freedom of speech in much the same way as I have to relocate to the moon.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, no. You can exercise that right any time. Say what you think in a loud voice in a pub. Write to the newspapers. Post to a blog.<BR/><BR/>That may sound trivial, and to us perhaps it is. But there are places where saying the wrong thing in any of those contexts would get you beaten up, or murdered - or arrested, tried, and treated as a criminal.<BR/><BR/>Which isn't just being sanctimonious. The right to say what you like with reasonable hopes of not being injured, arrested, or killed is fairly important, and it's on a continuum with the right to do the same through a printing press or from a party podium. It's a messy sort of right, with countless practical limitations and complications, and it's never 100% complete, and some people do get more use out of it than others - but it's still important.<BR/><BR/>By the way, if you want a practical rather than a moral justification for that right, try "A free market in ideas is important to the health of society and the economy." And talking of free markets... Printing presses aren't actually that expensive. Blogs and PCs and megaphones are dirt cheap. The problem isn't shouting loud enough; it's getting people to listen. I think that Rupert Murdoch is an evil manipulative bastard, but he didn't start out with his current global chain of newspapers, and if he used them purely to make unpopular political points, he wouldn't have them today. A lot of his power and wealth comes from giving people what they want. The problem isn't that he owns a printing press; it's that he's better at using it than most of us.Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140797827553910912006-02-24T16:17:00.000+00:002006-02-24T16:17:00.000+00:00I’ve come to think that there’s some cross-Atlanti...I’ve come to think that there’s some cross-Atlantic culture clash going on between myself and Charles Filson, and the reason that we can’t settle down to agree on this (despite seeming to have much in common) is that we’re coming at it from different directions. There’s a common reaction in America to all this to quote the First Amendment rights. Holocaust denial laws often seem a bugbear, an example of ‘exactly what’s wrong with Europe’, despite the fact that most European countries have no such laws! In Europe, despite Voltaire, there’s the saying “the great consolation in life is to say what you think.” <BR/><BR/>I’m not sure I can put it all better than that, really.<BR/><BR/><B>Dan Hemmens said... </B><BR/><I>Umm ... isn't it rather difficult to have a discussion about free speech without at some point talking about "Rights".</I><BR/><BR/>In some ways Dan seems to be out-Charles-ing Charles here. As much as he’s right, he’s only pinpointing the paucity of discussing something like freedom of speech as an abstract ‘right’. How do such things actually impact our lives? I have the right to freedom of speech in much the same way as I have to relocate to the moon. That doesn’t change the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns a printing works and I don’t. There’s no <I>theoretical</I> contradiction between the two comments of Dan’s I quoted, the contradiction only arises when you start to ask how ‘freedom of speech’ works <I>in practise. </I> The moneyed and influential get to shout, the rest of us to whisper.<BR/><BR/>Just on the Holocaust denial thing, I remain open to the suggestion that in it’s own context Austria might well need such a law. (Whether it does or not I don’t know, but I could perhaps be persuaded of it.) I can’t see the benefit of such a law in Britain, where pretty much everybody regards Holocaust deniers as fanatics or loonies. The point is such ‘rights’ operate in a context, to ‘universalise’ them from there and declare them ‘self-evident’ is to abstract them.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140687698698194752006-02-23T09:41:00.000+00:002006-02-23T09:41:00.000+00:00Charles Filson said... Perhaps we are more or less...<B>Charles Filson said... </B><BR/><I>Perhaps we are more or less in agreement here. </I><BR/><BR/>Well not in absolute disagreement, certainly. But you seem to be fluctuating between “least worst of currently possible options” and “maybe it’s not such a huge problem”. I think this <I>is</I> quite a big problem, and even if I don’t have some clever-clever solution to wheel out and stun you all with I think we should acknowledge problems as problems.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not sure how you would level the playing field short of letting some elitist group or person have the power to decide, and that just isn't going to work well. </I><BR/><BR/>This ‘solution’ would of course just be more problem. Instead of bigger and littler megaphones just have one great big one. Make the problem <I>so</I> big it’s hard to get it in frame any more!<BR/><BR/><B>Dan Hemmens said... </B><BR/><I>Actually, to my mind that doesn't make a difference. In fact it only supports their right to publish the cartoons. It's a right wing newspaper in a right wing country, if you can't publish that sort of thing there where </I><BR/>can<I> you publish them? <BR/><BR/>…in a free society, people have the right to hold and express ideas which do not conform to the majority opinion within that society. </I><BR/><BR/>Don’t these two statements contradict each other somewhat? The Danish paper’s bold stance in favour of majority prejudice doesn’t impress me as something particularly challenging or heroic. And let’s not forget the same paper refused to print anti-Christian cartoons because they “may cause offence”. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, who cares about ‘rights’? ‘Rights’ are a smokescreen. The language of ‘rights’ just obscures the fact that they own a printing works and me and you don’t.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140627468518817022006-02-22T16:57:00.000+00:002006-02-22T16:57:00.000+00:00Charles Filson said... The main problem I have wit...<B>Charles Filson said... </B><BR/><I>The main problem I have with your argument is that it sounds like you are saying that it's okay to limit free speech in areas that we all know are not valid… <BR/> <BR/>Who is this elite that gets to choose what topics are best left alone? </I><BR/><BR/>Well yes, that would be the main problem I would have with it too! It certainly leaves the door open to arguing that people aren’t very good at deciding things, so what we need is a benevolent dictator to enforce their will on everyone but nicely. Obviously I wasn’t saying that, but then I wasn’t really proposing <I>anything</I> – just raising the problem as I saw it. From your response I’d gather you see the same (or an essentially similar) problem, but as you can’t see much of a solution either you propose just ignoring it.<BR/><BR/>Against my ‘biggest megaphone’ argument I’d go out on a limb and suggest things might be a bit better if they were a bit… you know… fairer. Against my ‘people ain’t rational’ argument, I’d more tentatively suggest that maybe if people were able to make more practical decisions over their everyday lives they might get better at it from the exercise.<BR/><BR/>I’d also say I see a difference between saying “we are very lucky to have freedom of speech and not live in North Korea” and saying “we have a sort of very lopsided freedom of speech, which might be the least worst of the options now on offer”.<BR/><BR/><B>culfy said... </B><BR/><I>Tell me about it. The amount of times I've engaged with tossers on IMDB's Da Vinci Code who try to claim the book as factual based and then, when refuted, say "but the bible's just as fictional" (as if that's relevant). </I><BR/><BR/>As well as the ‘biggest megaphone’, the terminally sad with nothing better to do have an almighty pester power. They can post and post to message boards the same rubbish over and over, then when you finally give up on them ever listening to you and walk away they pronounce themselves the victor. It’s as if in the great creationist debate Huxley’s opponents had endlessly chanted “rubs off me and sticks to you” until it was time to go home.<BR/><BR/><I>The question is, what do you do about it? In a practical way I mean? </I><BR/><BR/>To reprise the essential argument of this post – don’t have a monkeys, mate.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140624562637548172006-02-22T16:09:00.000+00:002006-02-22T16:09:00.000+00:00I would agree with Charles that the presumption sh...<I> I would agree with Charles that the presumption should be towards free speech, that we should (in effect) have free speech apart from when we don’t. But there simultaneously seems to me to be some truth to the twin adage that he who shouts loudest shouts last, and he who shouts loudest is the one who can afford the bigger megaphone. </I><BR/><BR/>Tell me about it. The amount of times I've engaged with tossers on IMDB's Da Vinci Code who try to claim the book as factual based and then, when refuted, say "but the bible's just as fictional" (as if that's relevant).<BR/><BR/>Similarly, and more sinisterly, the amount of people who come into contact with David Irving's work and try and parrot his line, without any idea of context, refutations etc. is highly worrying.<BR/><BR/>The question is, what do you do about it? In a practical way I mean?Nick Mazonowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01672027642700116849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140601951099059082006-02-22T09:52:00.000+00:002006-02-22T09:52:00.000+00:00Charles talks a good fight here in his free speech...Charles talks a good fight here in his free speech polemic. I guess what he’s saying boils down to the notion that bad ideas are best driven out by good ones. Certainly there are much worse things to think in the world. If I was to believe that… oh say for instance… he was not altogether right in this notion I might be better off trying to post some reasoned reply than chasing him around the room with a stick. And here it is. (Err, the reply, that is, not the stick.)<BR/><BR/>If this is the case I can’t help but wonder just why so many bad ideas are still obstinantly hanging out in the world, like uninvited guests who never actually seem to leave. Holocaust denial may be a special case, due to its advanced services to lunacy it has little credibility outside of a lunatic fringe. But take something like Bush’s adventurism in Iraq, denounced by virtually every informed and disinterested commentator and the overwhelming weight of public opinion. It went ahead anyway, and its proponents are still determinedly insisting on its success and threatening another one.<BR/><BR/>Or take creationism, a notion driven out of mainstream scientific debate over a hundred and fifty years ago, but which still lurks in the public arena like it has a right to be there, insisting on a fight which by any reasonable compass its already lost many times.<BR/><BR/>To take a closer-to-home argument for the UK, every single instance of privatisation of public services has resulted in a poorer service for a greater price. Yet the mantra that the private sector always delivers better services more efficiently is as routinely repeated as ever, to the point where it’s become almost a given.<BR/><BR/>What could be the cause of this strange and sorry state of affairs?<BR/><BR/>Firstly, I would challenge that the notion that people are all rational beings, poring over the available evidence before arriving at sober and dispassionate conclusions. I reckon this notion is weakened by… oh say for instance… watching people for a bit. People are more often made up of confused and shifting clutches of fears, aspirations and associations. Life might well be easier if this wasn’t so, but it is so – so let’s not kid ourselves.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, ideas do not compete like Olympic candidates on some level playing field in the public arena. Creationism has scant science behind it but it has some wealthy and important backers who know how to hustle and agitate and can afford to do so. David Irving, ostensibly bankrupted by his lost lawsuit, continues to peddle his fibbery and fakery on a lavish-looking website rather than getting a day job at Tescos or something. According to yesterday’s Guardian, his backers include a Saudi Prince and a former U-boat commander.<BR/><BR/>I would agree with Charles that the presumption should be towards free speech, that we should (in effect) have free speech apart from when we don’t. But there simultaneously seems to me to be some truth to the twin adage that he who shouts loudest shouts last, and he who shouts loudest is the one who can afford the bigger megaphone.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140531902602652072006-02-21T14:25:00.000+00:002006-02-21T14:25:00.000+00:00Culfy said…Ooooh harsh! Consider my wrists slapped...<B>Culfy said…</B><BR/><I>Ooooh harsh! Consider my wrists slapped.</I><BR/><BR/>Well alright, but don’t let it happen again, boy!<BR/><BR/><I>I agree. Which is why none of the Danish cartoonists did this. The Mohammed with the head of a pig 'cartoon' was a doctored photograph added when the cartoons later circulated in the Arab states. </I><BR/><BR/>Pedantic answer follows… M’learned friend does not quite have the details marshalled correctly here. When the Danish Muslims objected to the cartoons they prepared a dossier which also included three extra images which they said they’d received as hate mail, included as a sort of context. While some have suggested they cooked these cartoons up themselves, no-one credible has claimed they were trying to pass them off as having come from the Danish newspaper. (Which wouldn’t have got them far in Denmark anyway. You could have just gone to the news-stand to prove them wrong.)<BR/><BR/>It’s when the furore hit in the Muslim world that this distinction got lost. How much this was down to misunderstanding and how much to wilful misinterpretation is anybody’s guess really. But they didn’t <I>invent</I> the doctored photo.<BR/><BR/>For the record, though, I would still regard the Danish paper as acting irresponsibly and provocatively. Pig-headed, with or without the actual pig head.<BR/><BR/><I>If someone genuinely believes that the Holocaust is a myth and publishes a book to this effect; is it really the best course of action to lock them up and potentially make a martyr? Even Deborah Lipstadt has attacked the imprisoning of Irving. </I><BR/><BR/>Do you imagine for one second Irving <I>really believes</I> the Holocaust to be a myth? He’s an accredited historian, after all, a fanatic but not an idiot. I’d suggest his thought process went as follows:<BR/>i) There was a Holocaust and what’s more it did a jolly decent job in cleansing society from a whole bunch of hooknosed Marxist troublemakers, and we could do with another one right about now.<BR/>ii) If he goes about saying this it might not go down very well, due to some peculiar lack of spleen folks of late have been showing over the subject of mass murder of civilians and the like, gutless lily-livered liberals that they are.<BR/>iii) If he pretends there <I>isn’t</I> a Holocaust, or one has been overstated, everyone will know what he means and those as fanatical as him might rally to his flag. But he might get into a bit less trouble for saying it, especially in Britain which doesn’t have Holocaust denial laws.<BR/><BR/>Irving’s ‘defence’ at the Austrian trial was that he now did accept there was a Holocaust due to ‘recent evidence’ that had come up during the Nineties. Despite the fact that this spectacular conversion didn’t seem to come up during his ill-fated 1998 libel suit against Lipstadt, does anyone here remember compelling new evidence over the Holocaust coming up in the Nineties? Survivors suddenly waking up with a shock – “Wait a second! That wasn’t water coming out the showers! Hold the front page!” If Irving changed his mind over the reality of the Holocaust he did it the week before the trial, and for completely expedient reasons.<BR/><BR/>Of course you can still believe Irving was plain lying and say it’s a bad move to lock him up for it. (You mention Lipstadt, that would seem to be her position.) My point was merely that a deliberate lie engaged in as a provocation is worse than a mere provocation. “Fuck you, you’re a child molester” is worse than a straightforward “fuck you”.<BR/><BR/>I don’t honestly have much of an opinion over the legality of Holocaust denial. It could even make sense to see it barred in certain countries, such as Austria, but not in Britain. As I’ve said before, my first concern over such laws is ‘mission creep’ into restriction of other things. If Irving’s not allowed to deny the truth of the Holocaust, does that mean someone could be prevented stating the truth of the firebombing of Dresden? (The subject of Irving’s first book.) The Holocaust has a peculiarly totemic importance in our culture, so perhaps it wouldn’t. But that’s the first question I’d ask.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140518448451564492006-02-21T10:40:00.000+00:002006-02-21T10:40:00.000+00:00Gavin Burrows said Culfy, I don’t mean this as har...<I> Gavin Burrows said <BR/><BR/>Culfy, I don’t mean this as harshly as it may sound but it’s a little ironic you offer to “drag this back to freedom of speech” then in your second post do anything but. </I><BR/><BR/>Ooooh harsh! Consider my wrists slapped. Truth is that the thought in my second post hit me after I'd put the first post down. I'm evil. I'll stick to free speech.<BR/><BR/><I> It’s of course irresponsible and inflammatory to give Mohammed the head of a pig, </I> <BR/><BR/>I agree. Which is why none of the Danish cartoonists did this. The Mohammed with the head of a pig 'cartoon' was a doctored photograph added when the cartoons later circulated in the Arab states.<BR/><BR/><I> But Irving (and presumably the Iranians) know full well there was a Holocaust but find it expedient to waste everybody’s time by trying to deny it. Irving’s telling a straightforward lie for political motivations, which seems to me a step further down the food chain. </I><BR/><BR/>I find this a dangerous path to step down. How can we say that X obviously does not believe Y but is saying it for political motivations, therefore X should not be allowed to say Y? If someone genuinely believes that the Holocaust is a myth and publishes a book to this effect; is it really the best course of action to lock them up and potentially make a martyr? Even Deborah Lipstadt has attacked the imprisoning of Irving.Nick Mazonowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01672027642700116849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140516010534449652006-02-21T10:00:00.000+00:002006-02-21T10:00:00.000+00:00Charles Filson said: I didn't choose food preparat...<B>Charles Filson said: </B><BR/><I>I didn't choose food preparation because it is not analogous. Perhaps it's useful to this discussion to look at how it is different though.<BR/><BR/>Food preparation is highly regulated and we have strict laws about exactly what can be done. Everybody seems toagree that this is good. If some particularily tasty foods cannot be prepared because of the restrictions that protect us, we consider this a fair trade off to be safe when we eat out. </I><BR/><BR/>You are really talking about eating <I>out</I> here though, aren’t you? There’s no restrictions on the domestic sale of, say, red kidney beans even though they can potentially kill if not cooked correctly. Your analogy would be to brothels, which in most societies are either highly regulated or illegal. In general people tend to regard private sexual activity similarly to private food making.<BR/><BR/>NB I’m not making a facetious comment here!<BR/><BR/>Culfy, I don’t mean this as harshly as it may sound but it’s a little ironic you offer to “drag this back to freedom of speech” then in your second post do anything but. I recognise I was running the risk when I brought ‘animal rights’ up, but I don’t think here is the place to debate the ‘ethics’ of animal experiments or abortion. (Hate both those terms but can’t think of anything better!) Let’s at least do Andrew the lip service of sort of responding to his original post!<BR/><BR/>Something like the David Irving trial might be a better example. Should he have the freedom to talk such absolute rubbish as a Holocaust denial or not? I don’t have a neat answer, I’m just posing the question. But one thing struck me when the Iranian press used the anti-Islamic cartoons as an excuse to print Holocaust-denying ones. It’s of course irresponsible and inflammatory to give Mohammed the head of a pig, it’s the equivalent of screaming “fuck you!” in a rational debate, it raises the temperature and lowers the sense. But Irving (and presumably the Iranians) know full well there was a Holocaust but find it expedient to waste everybody’s time by trying to deny it. Irving’s telling a straightforward lie for political motivations, which seems to me a step further down the food chain.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140508539527763892006-02-21T07:55:00.000+00:002006-02-21T07:55:00.000+00:00If some particularily tasty foods cannot be prepar...<I>If some particularily tasty foods cannot be prepared because of the restrictions that protect us, we consider this a fair trade off to be safe when we eat out.</I><BR/><BR/>Unpasteurised cheese.Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140449582229077082006-02-20T15:33:00.000+00:002006-02-20T15:33:00.000+00:00Gavin Burrows.I don’t think your final comments ab...<I> Gavin Burrows.<BR/>I don’t think your final comments about slavery really answer what I was asking. (The stuff revealing slavery to be worse than animal abuse seems a particular red herring, what did I say that this is intended as a response to?) I don’t believe it’s much of a defence to find someone else who does something worse, which seemed to be why you were suggesting no-one should criticise what goes on at Huntingdon. If I beat my wife and you beat yours worse, I still beat my wife. </I><BR/><BR/>Depends on whether you think "x is a bad thing, such a bad thing that it should never be allowed", "x is not a very nice thing, but if it happens, we should ensure we control it" orr "x is not a bad thing, I have no problem with it".<BR/><BR/>Take abortion for example (and none of this necessarily describes my own views). One argument for legalised abortion is that it prevents women having to go backstreet abortionists and suffer personal damage. I can't imagine that those strongly against abortion on the grounds that the fetus is a human life find this a convincing argument; they might point out that you might as well legalise theft, it's always going to happen and you could control it with Terry Pratchet style Thieves Guilds.<BR/><BR/>Others might argue that abortion is bad, but that the welfare of the woman overrules this.<BR/><BR/>It really depends where you draw the line with animal testing.Nick Mazonowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01672027642700116849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140449069553832472006-02-20T15:24:00.000+00:002006-02-20T15:24:00.000+00:00Can I drag this back to freedom of speech?Just an ...Can I drag this back to freedom of speech?<BR/><BR/>Just an idea that occured to me the other day, follow me with this one.<BR/><BR/>Our esteemed host has often expressed his dislike of Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings films. One of the reasons he gives is that Gimli has been turned into an unfunny comic dwarf. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps I'm assuming here, but I would think this goes beyond saying "Although in my opinion, portraying Gimli as an unfunny comic dwarf was a bad idea, I really respect Peter Jackson's rights to do so." I wwould hazard a guess that Andrew believes that portraying Gimli as a comic dwarf was a really bad idea; that Jackson shouldn't have done this and that if he (Andrew) had any say or influence on the process, he would have prevented it from happening.<BR/><BR/>Now, does this mean that Andrew is somehow denying PJs undoubted right to make films with comic dwarfs in, or denying the rights of people who want to watch films with comic dwarfs in?<BR/><BR/>Is there a difference between saying "x is a bad thing artistically to be shown , therefore it should not have been done" and "x is a bad thing morally to be shown, therefore it should not be shown"Nick Mazonowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01672027642700116849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140434792701536002006-02-20T11:26:00.000+00:002006-02-20T11:26:00.000+00:00Charles Filson said... I think 'puritanical' carri...<B>Charles Filson said... </B><BR/><I>I think 'puritanical' carries an implication of religious-based morality. My statement of good taste is based not on religion or morality, but rather on disease control; public health you understand. </I><BR/><BR/>I have to admit to wondering if it’s telling you chose that example of public health though, rather than say food preparation. <BR/><BR/>To momentarily take your side, however, I remember legal cases from a few years ago where people with AIDS were caught sleeping with others without telling them of their condition. This was at least presented at the time as deliberate, a kind of taking others down with you. There were legal cases over it, but there my memory goes a little hazy. Of course this is free speech in reverse, do I have the ‘right’ to stay silent if a piano’s falling on your head? I reckon most folks would answer ‘no’ there, I guess the question is what you do about it.<BR/><BR/><B>Phil Masters said... </B><BR/><I>However, they probably could have nicked you if they'd really wanted. Whether the judge would have got all sarcastic at them if it had ever gone to court is another matter. </I><BR/><BR/>To be sure! I’ve heard of many such malicious arrests in similar circumstances and of course they rarely go to court. Being arrested and cooped in a cell isn’t a particularly pleasant experience in and of itself and can often act as (in their terms) a deterrent, a kind of clip round the ear. Added to which the police can now add their own bail conditions. They could have, for example, forbad me from going near the fur shop again which would have meant I couldn’t go down my own town’s high street. (I’ve heard of many similar restrictions.) The charges are then normally dropped just before the trial date.<BR/><BR/><I>But deciding what sort of behaviour is bad enough to merit arrest is inevitably subjective. </I><BR/><BR/>Well pretty much <I>everything</I> is ultimately subjective! It was really meant more as a funny little anecdote, but I guess the point would be the police subjectively sided with the shopowner and not a bunch of scruffy-looking students. Hardly surprising, of course, but hardly ‘equality before the law’ either. As soon as you concede subjectivity you’re really giving that idea up. <BR/><BR/><I>Just for reference, is this a general principle with you, or does it relate solely to this particular area?<BR/><BR/>Honest question. Anarcho-libertarianism is a perfectly coherent political philosophy. It's just that you'd have to accept the possibility of fur shop owners packing shotguns in that case. </I><BR/><BR/>Not quite sure what you’re asking here. But there seems to lurk implicit in your question the idea that there’s some automatic polar opposition between obeying the law as it is and some wacky ‘do what thou wilt’ philosophy. I’m skeptical of a legalistic approach to solving social problems for a number of reasons. I think it professionalises problems and takes solving them out of the hands of regular folks. I think it inevitably orients itself towards those with power and influence (like shop owners over scruffy students) while maintaing a veneer of equality and fair play. <BR/><BR/>That’s why you get people put in prison for taking a photo of a security guard outside a bomb factory, while the bomb-making continues with impunity. (Something a little more serious than the example I gave.) I don’t think it follows from there that anyone should be able to do anything they feel like at any time, and I don’t think I’ve said anything to suggest that.<BR/><BR/>While you rightly criticise Blair’s new laws, I have also noticed that people are often quite sussed in their critiques of legislation <I>until it is passed.</I> Then what had previously been politically motivated becomes socially neutral and above criticism – “that’s just the law.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t think your final comments about slavery really answer what I was asking. (The stuff revealing slavery to be worse than animal abuse seems a particular red herring, what did I say that this is intended as a response to?) I don’t believe it’s much of a defence to find someone else who does something worse, which seemed to be why you were suggesting no-one should criticise what goes on at Huntingdon. If I beat my wife and you beat yours worse, I still beat my wife.Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140370734679888622006-02-19T17:38:00.000+00:002006-02-19T17:38:00.000+00:00Gavin Burrows said...On leaving home and trying in...<B>Gavin Burrows said...</B><BR/><BR/><I>On leaving home and trying industriously to conform to the ‘belligerent student’ stereotype I donned my beret and joined in with a picket of a fur shop. The owner called the cops, and explained to them we were annoying him and he felt like marching out and punching one of us. Whereupon they told us that if we didn’t move they’d arrest us for behaviour likely to occasion a breach of the peace’! Presumably hanging around in a manner likely to get hit. (We refused and they backed down.)</I><BR/><BR/>However, they probably could have nicked you if they'd really wanted. Whether the judge would have got all sarcastic at them if it had ever gone to court is another matter.<BR/><BR/>Which may sound terribly oppressive, but the fact is, we've got laws about "threatening behaviour" and "breach of the peace". If somebody screams abuse in somebody else's face, or yells "United are w%@*$&s" in a pub full of United fans, they're doing something that probably needs to be stopped. But deciding what sort of behaviour is bad enough to merit arrest is inevitably subjective.<BR/><BR/><I>I tend to think the same thought as you the other way up, that we suffer from enough legal restrictions already without having more piled on.</I><BR/><BR/>Just for reference, is this a general principle with you, or does it relate solely to this particular area?<BR/><BR/>Honest question. Anarcho-libertarianism is a perfectly coherent political philosophy. It's just that you'd have to accept the possibility of fur shop owners packing shotguns in that case.<BR/><BR/><I>Just interested, would you say the same about people protesting the way workers or patients were being treated? Say unsafe conditions in a factory or hospital? Should we not have abandoned slavery because slaves might get sent elsewhere and be treated worse? The same thing would be true, wouldn’t it?</I><BR/><BR/>Not really.<BR/><BR/>Okay, the first part of the answer has to be "No, I don't think that medical research involving animals is as bad as slavery." Do you?<BR/><BR/>The second part involves saying that hospitals aren't likely to move abroad, and manufacturing can only do so some of the time. But to the extent that it does, dealing with the consequences is quite tricky. Giving industries good reasons to act virtuously can be as important as shouting at them when they behave badly.<BR/><BR/>Thirdly - Banning slavery was a great achievement. But I don't suppose that you're talking about the law that slaves couldn't be owned in Britain - that dates back to the Elizabethan period, I believe, though it was usefully re-stated in the 18th century. What people tend to talk about, though, is when we banned slavery anywhere in the world where we could stop it. You know, sending the Royal Navy out to point large guns at slavers and make them cease and desist.<BR/><BR/>If animal experimentation was taking place in, say, South Korea, or Thailand, or South Africa, would you want the Royal Marines to invade the place to make it stop?<BR/><BR/>And fourth, looking back a bit further - early Islamic law, for one example, treats slavery as a bad thing, but not something that can be banned. After all, if Muslims hadn't been able to keep slaves, they'd probably have massacred most of the prisoners who they took in war. They also had laws saying that it was illegal to free slaves if they weren't able to support themselves. No turning the poor sods out in the street to starve.<BR/><BR/>In other words, you could say that those sorts of laws condoned slavery. They also probably saved thousands of lives. Now, good thing or bad thing?Phil Mastershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533451060065715833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140218223975458542006-02-17T23:17:00.000+00:002006-02-17T23:17:00.000+00:00Louise said While I would hate to take this long a...<I> Louise said <BR/><BR/>While I would hate to take this long and rambling debate even further astray on its country walk, can I point out that there is not a consensus on the moral and social superiority of sexual monogamy and to pick generalised promiscuity as an example of bad behaviour (which should nevertheless be legally tolerated) is, well, a bit Puritanical. Especially if it is being compared to, say, hurling racist abuse. </I><BR/><BR/>My fault. I actually meant to say 'Sexual Promiscuity without responsibility, e.g. wilfully ignoring contraception and safe sex'.Nick Mazonowiczhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01672027642700116849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140193756920878332006-02-17T16:29:00.000+00:002006-02-17T16:29:00.000+00:00Also I'd point out the quote's actually from Charl...Also I'd point out the quote's actually from Charles Filson and not me. I have nothing against the sexually promiscuous apart from jealousy.<BR/><BR/>(Easy to misattribute a quote, I know. Just pointing out for the record.)Gavin Burrowshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16347163260510316959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9987513.post-1140192404895655672006-02-17T16:06:00.000+00:002006-02-17T16:06:00.000+00:00While I would hate to take this long and rambling ...While I would hate to take this long and rambling debate even further astray on its country walk, can I point out that there is not a consensus on the moral and social superiority of sexual monogamy and to pick generalised promiscuity as an example of bad behaviour (which should nevertheless be legally tolerated) is, well, a bit Puritanical. Especially if it is being compared to, say, hurling racist abuse.Louise Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15120364497851844081noreply@blogger.com