I am reactionary on freedom of speech. I am for it. I have no time for the weasel words of pseudo-liberalism, that freedom must sometimes be curbed to advance freedom. It is like the tyrant’s censor who declares he approves of all criticism provided it is fair, constructive, offends no one and is not conducive to violence. That is free speech a la Putin. It is the more dangerous as it often has the best tunes.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the dayFebruary 5th, 2014 |
 5 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
‘Au Putin’, the man is an ignoramus. Like a stopped clock, however, he can be right on occasion, and here he is right, but it seems to me, regards his cause as lost.
I agree with what Simon Jenkins says here.
I take it that he opposes the 1965 Race Relations Act and the other measures that have undermined freedom of speech in this land.
He’d best leave the Guardian then.
So, does that sorta’ mean that a LAW proscribing that any “opinion” voiced MUST ALSO go to the expense and labor of simultaneously presenting “oppositionist opinion” (including and ESPECIALLY the official Ministry of Truth) probably shouldn’t be caaaaaaalled
“Journolistick (sic)Freedom” laws? (via. U.S. so-called “progressives”, of course)