Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

11 Comments

  1. Agree with all your points. Best I think to let them in & let them express their ignorance. Makes it easier to identify those here who hold their views & hold them to account publicly. Freedom of thought & expression go hand-in-hand.

    Must point out though that your sentiment contradicts previous campaigns on this blog to ban people. For example, there was a campaign to ban an Israeli tennis player…

    1. This blog is a collective of 40 individuals with disparate views from across the spectrum of the ‘left.’

      We aren’t speaking with one voice. There is no party line.

    1. Or, conversely, the state is the the voice of the people deeming that certain things are not appropriate for wide dissemination because of the harm it causes, or the environment created that enable harm to be perpetrated on others?

      1. Was the State the voice of the people in the Tuhoe raids?

        As more & more of our freedoms are eroded I worry about banning. As an activist & a unionist I’m aware that one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. At sone point couldnt my speech become perceived as harmful?
        I’m not convinced that cultivating a culture of censorship will serve us well in the future.

  2. I’ve stood up for freedom of speech before on the blog, and I’m glad to see I’m not the only one. As Chomsky put it, if you don’t support free speech by people you disagree with, then you don’t really support free speech. I disagree with the corporatist shills who turn up here to shit in our soup and spout key messages, and I’m all for moderating their comments if they get abusive, but never censoring them merely for having a contrary opinion. We must remember that the ability to dissent is *essential* to any kind of democracy.

Comments are closed.