Freedom of Speech Debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pete

Recent example of a couple of academics recently wrote a book on US-Israeli policy lobbying. In the US critics tried to discredit calling it anti-Semitic which if we did not have free speech would be used to ban the book. :(

Book investigating Israeli lobby in the US

---

That is just a tactic used by the pro-Israel lobby to undermine and discredit anyone who questions the actions of the Israeli state - you are dismissed as beign an antio-semite, even if your views and valid and you are clearly not being anti-semitic. They will not allow anyone to de-couple the Israeli state from the Israeli/Jewish people.

No-one wants to be slurred as an anti-semite, as you can't defend against such allegations and it wouold serioously hamper any author, documentary maker etc in the US. so as a tactic it works to suppress open debate and questioning of Israel in the US. Ironically it does more to suppress free speech than any notion that such books might be banned would be likely to do.

It is a debating tactic - not about free speech. It's no different than the English Labour party in the 1990's discrediting its own members who supported the principle of Free Education by labelling them all 'Trots', to steer people who feared the left of the party away from supporting the principle and towards supporting Tuition Fees

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

That is just a tactic used by the pro-Israel lobby to undermine and discredit anyone who questions the actions of the Israeli state - you are dismissed as beign an antio-semite, even if your views and valid and you are clearly not being anti-semitic. They will not allow anyone to de-couple the Israeli state from the Israeli/Jewish people.

No-one wants to be slurred as an anti-semite, as you can't defend against such allegations and it wouold serioously hamper any author, documentary maker etc in the US. so as a tactic it works to suppress open debate and questioning of Israel in the US. Ironically it does more to suppress free speech than any notion that such books might be banned would be likely to do.

---

But is this not basically the same as the 'no platform' argument you described earlier? The Israeli lobby has decided that there views are so terrible that they shouldn't be allowed to be aired, the difference being that you disagree with this particular decision.

That's the problem I have with the argument. I'd have no problem with a budding young fascist being prevented from organising but looking at the three people denied a platform recently in UCDD; Justin Barret, Michael McDowel and Éamon Ryan, it's pretty clear that the logic is being abused. Probably to the point where free speech would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

Jebus' arguement it that by allowing fascists/homopobes/racists etc a public platform, we also create a platform where their views can be shown up as ludicrous and untenable to the general public, thus actually helping to diminish the influence of those who hold such ludicrous views.

---

That worked ever so well in the Weimar Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

Justin Barret, Michael McDowel and Éamon Ryan, it's pretty clear that the logic is being abused. Probably to the point where free speech would be better.

---

Thats bull. Eamon Ryan was not denied a platform. I know one of the students involved in that protest and they have been completely misrepresented by the college authorities and others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

That worked ever so well in the Weimar Republic.

---

Fine.

You're the boss of Weimar Germany.

What's your approach to Adolf and the boys??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

That worked ever so well in the Weimar Republic.

---

Lads people referencing the rise of the Nazis in the Weimar Republic as a reason why people shouldn't be given the stage are way off in my opinion. The Weimer Germans at the time would have latched on to anything, be it religion, a new political group or a sovereignty if they thought it would put bread back on their table. I've always maintained that if I had lived in Germany during the 20s and 30s I'd have believed ever last word that Hitler said, given the way his party turned that economy around. But I still maintain to suppress one groups ideals totally will lead us down a path where people will eventually start banning religions, other political groups and organisations that go against what the ruling party believe (that is if you don't already think that the control governing parties exert over the media isn't total already) and then we're right back in Fascism country. Better to put these cretons on show and hammer it home to people what level of nonsense they believe than have them simmer away, picking people up here and there as the economy starts failing

See I think you misunderstand the No-Platform position. It is not anti-free speech per say it is stopping Fascists from organising. If there is a picket on a Fascist meeting it is saying - you will not be allowed organise. You will not be allowed grow in strength. I also believe that people like David Irvine should not be allowed present blatant lies as truth.
The right to freedom of speech is an abstract. Freedom of speech in its fullest sense has never existed anywhere. There have always been barriers to dissidents. Maybe not direct ones like stopping them from talking but misrepresentation of someones beliefs (as happens all the time to us Socialists in the press) and giving disproportionate time to the representatives of the ruling class than to their opponents. That is the reality of class society.

What would you know anyway, sure socialists believe that total anarchy will ultimately lead everyone back to your party










:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

But is this not basically the same as the 'no platform' argument you described earlier? The Israeli lobby has decided that there views are so terrible that they shouldn't be allowed to be aired, the difference being that you disagree with this particular decision.

---

Not at all. There's a huge diference between views that any sane person would consider vile and hate-filled being held-up as such, and claiming that views that are not broadly considered as vile - but that are just contrary to yours - being labelled as vile from a deliberate tactic of dismissing and undermining them.

As an example. if a black person accused me of being rascist, it is extremely difficult for me to prove that I'm not - even if their intentions in doing so are scurrilous. It's massively more so when it's black organisations branding you rascist. likewise - when the Jewsish lobby brands you as anti-semetic, the fact that you were merely raising issues with the actiosn of the Israeli state in a non anti-semetic way are lost. Once you're labelled a Jew-hater by the Jewish lobby, it sticks. Particularly in a country like the US, where that lobby is extremely powerful in important areas like the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dcfcsteve

Not at all. There's a huge diference between views that any sane person would consider vile and hate-filled being held-up as such, and claiming that views that are not broadly considered as vile - but that are just contrary to yours - being labelled as vile from a deliberate tactic of dismissing and undermining them.

---

I understand what you're saying but the only way to draw the distinction is to allow the views to be heard so that sane people can consider them to be vile and hate filled.

If there was such thing as a committee of wise old people we could trust to decide what's best for us to hear then I might agree but there isn't. The government's track record on censorship contains at least as much bad as good and I think the records of smaller organisations like students' unions is worse.

I'd be happy to accept a trade off between preventing the next Hitler at the cost of the occasional student debate getting canceled (I'll leave aside the discussion about what exactly prevented Éamon Ryan from speaking in UCDD. If we don't like that example there are plenty of others) but I really don't think that that's what's on offer. The next 'thing as bad as the Nazis' won't look exactly like the Nazis, a good example from history being the Czechoslovakians who voted in the communists because communism was the exact opposite of fascism.

I don't think that upholding a law that says no one is allowed deny the holocaust will make any difference to the next budding young totalitarian regime because if they need a scapegoat they're going to pick something different. Having in place a system where the government or some other group can decide what opinions are allowed is more likely to help than hinder such a regime.

A number of issues have occurred to me in connection with this thread.
1) David Irving and his ilk denying the holocaust are just totally WRONG. The Nazi's themselves kept meticulous records of the throughput from the camps. They hardly made that up themselves now did they? I would ask Mr. Irving what the purpose of Belsen, Auschwitz and Dachau was... they were hardly knitting circles.....

2) With regard to the Weimar Republic, their electoral system was overly representative which led to lots of minor parties and independent candidates ending up in the National Parliament. They have learned from their mistakes in that regard. The current German Constitution, The 1949 Basic Law, as amended, has a provision that any organisation which puts a candidate up for election, has to achieve 5% of the national popular vote before they can get a seat in the Bundestag( Federal Parliament). In addition extreme fascist organisations and extreme communist organisations are banned.

As the country has regional parliaments, this allows the regional protest movements to have a say at local level without wasting the time of the National parliament. The former East German communist party still has support in the ex-DDR but their representation is confined to the Laender parliaments mainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CollegeTillIDie

The current German Constitution, The 1949 Basic Law, as amended, has a provision that any organisation which puts a candidate up for election, has to achieve 5% of the national popular vote before they can get a seat in the Bundestag( Federal Parliament).

---

Something we should bring in to deal with our own right wing tools...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macy

Something we should bring in to deal with our own right wing tools...

---

I agree Macy. Germany uses strong tactics to protect it's democracy. Something the Weimar Republic (1919 -1932) failed to achieve. Given that they have a strong liking for authoritarianism in some shape or form,in their political culture, it was a good tactic to get the post 1949 regime some respect among the populous at large. It is an offence to be wandering abroad without I.D in the Federal Republic, and the Police can arrest and detain you for this. German residents have National I.D. Cards, visitors are encouraged to carry some photo I.D. when they are out on the streets over there. I personally do not have a problem with the concept of National I.D. cards as having same can become very convenient. It makes it easier to get a bank account opened etc if you have a photo I.D. and easier to prove your age where that is an issue into the bargain. The only people who have anything to fear from I.D. cards, in my opinion , are people who are up to no good! Another place where a national I.D. Card can be of use
is in cases where people are suffering from amnesia. A quick check of the National I.D. card would soon reveal who it is.

And if one of our right wing tools is misbehaving and doesn't have his I.D. he has committed two offences and will spend longer in jail. Which perversely he should agree with :D


With regard to the Israeli situation, given there are Israeli Arabs (citizens of the State who happen to be non-Jews) and a minority Christian population the branding of Israelis being automatically Jewish, is almost as insidious as the age old Irish/Catholic automatic identifier in the public mind as large. I am reminded of the fact that 2 of our Presidents(Head Of State - First Citizen etc.) were non-Catholic despite not having more than 10% of the population at large and that at one point we had 3 Jewish T.D.s at a time when if all our Ireland's Jewish population had resided in the one constituency they would have struggled to reach a single quota for one seat.

I know the whole purpose of the establishment of the State of Israel was to have a homeland for the Jewish diaspora but nevertheless it has become much bigger than that since 1948.

Who decides who are banned from representation? How do they decide in Germany who is fascist & communist? Surely that is a denial of democracy? The lack of democracy in Pakistan for example possible encourages extremism as no democratic means of opposing Musharaf...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

If there was such thing as a committee of wise old people we could trust to decide what's best for us to hear then I might agree but there isn't.

---

You could argue that there was up until 15-20 years ago - the Church. Is then the Church's position's decline in society a good or bad thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

You could argue that there was up until 15-20 years ago - the Church. Is then the Church's position's decline in society a good or bad thing?

---

That probably depends on whether they were buggering you or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John83

That probably depends on whether they were buggering you or not.

---

And whether you liked it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

And whether you liked it or not.

---

I find this offensive. I propose, to the grand committee, that Bohs Partisan have his freedom of speech revoked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Student Mullet

I find this offensive. I propose, to the grand committee, that Bohs Partisan have his freedom of speech revoked.

---

No no you've got it all wrong. The next time I am speaking at a public lecture, you organise a protest and stop me from entering the building. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

No no you've got it all wrong. The next time I am speaking at a public lecture, you organise a protest and stop me from entering the building. :D

---

Burn :D

pete

The Nazi Party is banned and the Communist Party is also banned. That's why you have neo-fascist organisations and pseudo-communist organisations in operation. Political organisations have to register and apply for licences to operate. If your party constitution and stated aims are deemed to be in breach of the Basic Law... you're out.
I think those controversial borderline decisions come before the Courts.

It's strict but even handed. The way every democracy should be. And the authorities protect the democratic rights with an Iron fist, which has earned the democratic regime legitimacy and respect among a populous who had a historic expectation of being governed by autocratic or authoritarian rule.