Today, however, free speech and politics are under concerted assault in the liberal democracies of the West. The public-private consortia directing that campaign—what has been called the Censorship Industrial Complex—was the topic of a conference at the end of June in London.
[…]
The war against free speech is being fought with treaties and official agreements with wording as broad as a shotgun’s blast. One of many examples is the OAS’s 2013 Inter-American Convention Against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance. Article 1 of the Convention includes in its definition of intolerance “disrespect, rejection, or contempt . . . [for the] opinions” of others, while Article 4 states that the “duties of the [35 signatory] states” include “ [to] prevent, eliminate, prohibit, and punish, in accordance with their constitutional norms . . . all acts and manifestations of discrimination and intolerance.” But what is “disrespect”? What constitutes “rejection” of an opinion? Is, say, discussion of the connection between Islam and violence punishable intolerance? There are no clear answers to these questions, because the censors never define their terms. The vagueness deliberately encourages self-censorship by communicating an implicit warning: caveat loquens, let the speaker beware.
Just a few years ago we had free speech butters. “I believe in free speech but…” Of course we all know that if there is a but then you don’t actually believe in free speech at all but the free speech butters were at least aware that not believing in free speech was a bad thing. Now all pretence has been dropped, they deplore free speech because we can’t have the far right and climate change deniers expressing their thoughts now can we? I point to history, can you name one case when those who were in favour of censorship didn’t turn out to be the bad guys?
Stonyground – yes.
They, the Collectivist establishment, hate Freedom of Speech – to them all dissent, on any subject, is “Hate Speech” and people who dissent should, they believe, be punished.
They control about 90% of advertising (via various “professional associations”) and as the House of Representatives inquiry (reported in the New York Post) has made clear, they are using that economic power to try and push their Collectivist political and cultural agenda – and crush dissent.
And the state broadcasters are no better than the private (Corporate) broadcasters – for example this is how the, despicable, “France 24” reported President Trump’s latest rally….
“he repeated lies about the 2020 election”.
The “lies” being that the election was rigged – which it was.
The people of “France 24” know very well that the election was rigged, but they do not care – all they care about is defeating “Trump” and all other dissenters (remember these are the establishmentarians who smeared the National Rally as followers of Adolf Hitler – “a danger of the first far right government since World War II”) – so they declare that any, correct, statements about the rigging with endless fake mail-in-ballots (and so on) are “lies”.
Ditto many other subjects – the “lies” are the truth, and the “official narrative” is a pack of lies.
One can always tell who is lying in a dispute – the liars are the people who support the other side being censored.
Whether it is Brazil, France, Germany, the United States (Corporate censorship – but working hand-in-hand with the government, and the cowardly Supreme Court has refused to do anything about the censorship, just as the cowardly courts refused to even allow the evidence of election rigging to be presented), or anywhere else – people who want to crush dissenting media, and dissenters in general, are the liars.
Damn the international establishment – damn them to Hell.
’contempt . . . [for the] opinions” of others’
Sounds like a law all political parties and qua goes could potentially fall foul of! Not to mention ‘Guardian’ columnists.
JuliaM
This law, like all such laws, will be enforced selectively.
The left will be able to say anything they like – but the right will not.
It is already that way – for example Lawrence Fox was insulted on Twitter (now X) and insulted-back the people who attacked him, “racist!” – “paedophile!”.
The courts ruled that it was O.K. to insult Mr Fox – but not O.K. for him to insult the people who attacked him.
Why? Because the attackers were leftists and Mr Fox is thought of as “right wing”.
That is the country we live in – that is our legal system.
By the way – the judge was operating correctly, if one believes the training she received is correct – as the training materials are riddled with Marxist DEI (in this country EDI) assumptions and doctrines, although the actual word “Marxist” is carefully NOT used.
Power-relations, exploitation and oppression, disadvantaged and marginalised groups, the normal tap dance.
By the way – about France 24 television.
As well as implying that the National Rally are followers of Adolf Hitler (“the danger of the first far right government since World War II”) it also broadcasts endless antisemitic (sorry it would say “anti Israel” or “anti Zionist”) propaganda every day.
So the French state establishment is going to save the world from the “far right” – by de facto supporting the extermination of Israel (seven million Jews – the murder of six million Jews somehow not being enough).
And if anyone thinks they “just” want to wipe out Israel and would protect Jews in France from the forces of I…. then I have a nice bridge to sell you.
P.E. Moore, the tutor of T.S. Eliot (although he did not hold with Eliot’s modernism in literature) was horrified by the brutal, and often corrupt, ideological conflict in the United States – when Moore visited Britain in the 1930s he almost stayed here, as it was so peaceful. But then Moore started to talk (really talk – deep) to the young students and other such here – and was shocked.
The “Conservatives” in Britain had not thought about political principles, or philosophical principles – the average county sheriff in United States, corrupt though they might be, had thought more about these things than students, or most supposedly Conservative academics, in Britain – instead there was a bland conformism, an acceptance of the principles of the left – for example that government could do anything (anything at all) that it judged “for the greatest good of the greatest number” (Jeremy Bentham style idiocy).
Personal moral responsibility? Fighting to the death to uphold natural rights (such as Freedom of Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) against the state? Oh David Hume (or some other person) had “refuted” all that – said the supposed Conservatives and supposed Liberals, as well as the Socialists.
Besides, said even the students of theology, the individual human soul was an “outdated” concept (again “refuted” by David Hume or some other person – there was no “I” in a moral sense) – all actions were predetermined…..
Perhaps P.E. Moore was overstressing things, after all in the 1930s such British thinkers as Harold Prichard, Sir William David Ross, J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis (and others) were still alive and active.
But he certainly got most of the young students right – and this country now, in 2024, is very much their country, if not among the ordinary people – then certainly among the establishment.
P.E. Moore came to understand that the brutal, and often corrupt, ideological conflict of the United States (“are we going to win or lose this case?” – “well it depends on what judge we can get – Judge …. is a Progressive scumbag, but Judge …. is a conservative, Federalist Society member”) is not the worst thing there can be – that blind, unthinking, conformism is worse.
The British establishment do not have to be bribed or threatened – they follow fashionable (read Collectivist) ideas, without really thinking about ideas, principles, very much.
Blind, and bland, conformism.
If you have a sound argument and you believe that your point of view is correct, then you have no need to censor those that oppose you. Opposing opinions put your ideas to the test and this is a good thing. If it turns out that you were actually mistaken, opposing views are the best way to discover this. You then need to revise your opinion as the alternative is just to stay wrong.
Those on the Left have the problem that whenever their ideas are put into practice the results are always a disaster. Free market economies have repeatedly proven to provide better results, not just for the successful but for everyone. The climate alarmists have a similar problem, they have been predicting thermageddon now for over forty years. If they could make it illegal to mention that then their beliefs wouldn’t magically become true but that would seem to be what they believe.
So in conclusion, you only believe in censorship if you’re wrong.
Stonyground – correct.
And the fact that the Collectivists supported censorship even BEFORE their system was tried (going all the way back to Plato – but certainly including Robespierre – it was not just violating his price controls that got you the death penalty, verbally opposing his policies would also get you the death penalty, and this was a man who had opposed the death penalty for murder) indicates, at least I think it does, that they KNOW their policies will fail – know in advance.
For example, if you think that multiculturalism will be a wonderful success – why make peacefully opposing it (in speech or writing) a crime? Surely the wonderful success of the policy will make critics of the policy look foolish indeed – thus making criminalising dissent have no function.
Only if you know (know in advance) that the policy will have negative consequences do Acts such as that of 1965 (and a whole series of other British Acts that criminalised peaceful dissent) make sense. Remember the 1965 British Act was NOT about repealing “Jim Crow” laws (and Jim Crow laws discriminating against black people were indeed a terrible EVIL in the United States) in Britain – there were none, and there had never been any. Nor could it have been about dealing with the consequences of “Jim Crow” laws – because, again, there had never been any such laws in the United Kingdom. Nor can it be a matter of “giving a policy a chance to succeed” and then allowing peaceful dissent – as, for example, it has been 59 years since the 1965 Act was passed – yet any suggestion that it be repealed, that dissent be allowed (not treated as “incitement to racial hatred”) would be considered a total outrage, even after almost 60 years. 60 years is not enough time for the policy to prove itself?
The same for Lenin in 1917 – if the Revolution was going to a wonderful, self evident, success, why criminalise peaceful dissent?
Only if you know (know in advance) that the Revolution, the Collectivism, is going to lead to much worse poverty (more poverty – not less poverty) does criminalising peaceful dissent make sense.
Stony,
I think climate is different. OK, you got a couple of things that could pan out. 1. The End of The World. Then nobody’s gonna be left to call-out the Greens. 2. Things Continue. Then the Greens get to say that’s because we all did just enough. They’ve actually built themselves an essentially irrefutable position. It’s very clever in it’s way.
NickM – as you know the definition of a scientific theory (as shown by Sir Karl Popper and others) is bound up with it being refutable by empirical evidence.
However, the international establishment claim that data and the OPPOSITE of that data “prove” the C02-is-evil-theory – if it is hot this is “proof”, but if it is cold this is ALSO presented as “proof” (supposedly the polar vortex has been disrupted – or whatever) of the C02-is-evil theory.
Whatever this is – it is clearly NOT science, although academic “scientists” are paid to support it and they are driven from their positions if they oppose the theory (so much for open and free scientific debate).
And by some strange coincidence the policies “needed” according to deal with C02 being evil, just happen to be the policies of totalitarian world governance that the international elite were advocating BEFORE the C02-is-evil was used a justification for these policies.
The totalitarian demands came FIRST – the C02-is-evil theory justification for the totalitarianism, years before.
Again what a strange coincidence that the totalitarianism that was being demanded, for years, by the international establishment just happens to be necessary to deal with C02 being evil.
No wonder Mr David Rockefeller was laughing after the Rio Conference of 1992 – he, and the rest of the international establishment, had been pushing international governance for DECADES – and now (using the C02-is-evil theory as justification) most of the governments, and corporations, of the world, had agreed to it.
That international (world) governance would be totalitarian is obvious – as there would be no where to run to.