Friday 19 April 2013

To the death?

Voltaire didn't actually say that he would defend to the death your right to say something with which he disagreed, but he is usually quoted as saying so and it is widely agreed that's what he meant. It's often the last thing somebody tweets before then trying to rouse a nice, caring hate mob to get a user's account closed down.

Whether or not such action is successful seems to depend very much on from where the disagreeable words originate and at whom they are aimed. It's exactly as if some people's hate is more acceptable than other people's hate. So, it is okay, apparently, for people to loudly demand for two decades the death of an individual, yet it is wrong to observe that almost every suicide bomber hails from one closed community holding a single irrational and unprovable belief.

It appears to be hateful and loathsome and vile to drunkenly utter on social media a racist taunt which you then withdraw, but it is fine to loudly and widely revel in the death of an octogenarian and hurl abuse of the most extreme kind at any who defend her legacy. And now it turns out that being from Liverpool places you in a special class affording you protection from nasty words, presumably because you can't handle them when they're coming your way.

Thus it was that Twitter stalwart @Old_Holborn was reported to Essex Police yesterday for repeatedly tweeting and blogging harsh words about Scousers, yet no such action seems to have been taken against any of the many that took it upon themselves to call for a mob to descend on his home and take the abuse from the merely verbal to the physical level. Predictably, Twitter has 'gone off on one' today. (Search the hashtag #SaveOldHolborn if you really need to know.)

Is it naivety, gullibility or plain old immaturity? What ailment afflicts those who believe free speech is a one-way street? And if it is,what law says so? When I was growing up the mantra "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" was the accepted defence against jeering and name-calling. We were told that millions of men had died in wars to defend, literally to the death, our right to a free society; and that freedom has always meant the right to express oneself, however misguided, however distasteful.

We even allow frequent Islamic protesters to loudly and fanatically call for the actual death of all non-Muslims, yet quickly deploy police to turn away those holding counter protests, denouncing those views as hate crimes.

The originators of cries for speech suppression seem to me to most often be those who hold to socialist inspired views, those who have self-identified as victims and those who most vociferously demand the Police uphold their own imagined 'rights' not to ever hear, see or suffer offence. Defend freedom of speech to the death, Lefties? Or defend it only so long as it suits the cause?

Enough commentators over the centuries have made the point for it to be taken as valid, that freedom includes the right to make a twat of yourself in public, in print, on placards; to support or oppose a person a cause or a principle. Laws exist to prevent you from spreading harmful lies in the form of libel and slander. But we already have laws that suppress your right to express your fear or dislike of people who don't look like you. Arresting somebody for merely saying 'out loud' what a significant number of people are thinking is one step on the way to making opinions a legal matter.


And when we get to that point (this year, next year?) who will decide what opinions are acceptable? In fact, will we allow individual opinion - let's call it dissent - at all? I believe such things have been tried before and Winston Smith would easily recognise the sort of world that creates. What thought crimes have you committed today?

For a more dramatic, close up view of events I urge you to read this blog also, by another Twitter worthy, @fatcouncillor to see how far some people will go to deny freedom of speech.

29 comments:

  1. Well said. What scares me is that it even needs to be said!

    Gang, mob, pack behaviour requires blind loyalty that cannot permit dissent - these are the types that free-thinking, inteligent, believers in liberty must educate.

    ReplyDelete
  2. brilliant piece. today's cunt politicians & police are a gang of criminals how dare they arrest a man for his speech and his views which were entirely peaceful. the cockroaches on the left are evil

    ReplyDelete
  3. I disagree, old_holborn exsisted purely as a twitter troll, spitting venom about Hillsborough and James Bulger, regularly.
    Do you not realise how many families of Hillsborough victims still feel the effects of that day? It haunts them and the last thing they need is some disgusting anonymous man commenting on 1) something he knows little to nothing about and 2) intentionally using twitter to hurt people?
    Freedom of speech isn't an excuse to be cruel, would he have said those things face to face with a Hillsborough family?
    What about James Bulger? Would he have made those comments to the boys mother? No. Because as long as he can hide behind a computer screen he can be as vile as he wants.
    Apparently Scousers whine? And complain? Oh our life is so hard, nothing is ever our fault, why us?
    Well, if your child was tortured and slaughtered by two boys, or if you father or brother or daughter was crushed to death at a football game, and then you, your family and your community were blamed for it, got called scum and murderers for years.
    Well, I imagine you'd have some select words to say too.

    Utterly revolting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any society that suppresses provocative, challenging discourse is heading for fascism - something I'm sure you don't agree with Amy.

      Rather predictably your argument comes from a place of self-certified rectitude; in other words you're just another socialist crusader who feels beyond criticism as they are acting in the name of common decency.

      The human race is dirty, contrary, and impulsive - you can't erase this through social engineering and legislation, however fervently you might want to.

      Delete
    2. Tough tit. You're upset, you're offended? Tough. Fucking. Tit.

      You don't get to arrest someone for hurting your feelings - at least, you shouldn't, not in a sane society.

      Delete
  4. I wouldnt disagree with you Amy but one of the point being made here is if you are going to take action against OH why has there been no action action against the many individuals who have posted vile hate speech all over the internet re Margaret Thatcher. Why has there been no arrests in those towns which saw cruel mock lynchings and burnings. Is there any consistency here or is it all one way ?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Im sure our great grand parents would be delighted that they fought in the war for freedom of speech so that an out of touch, out of shape, 60 year old idiot can sit behind a cloak of anonymity and joke about the death of a 2 year old. Freedom of speech, this is not a fine example. If he was proud of his thought/words his face would be published instead of a mask. Its appalling that you think this is the ideal freedom of speech. No it isnt. Its a cowardly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't at any point said I agree or disagree with what Old Hoborn has said. But as soon as you start to censor - and the legal clamping down on racist remarks IS censorship - you open the doors to have anything that anybody finds offensive so censored.

      There is a far easier way to deal with all of this and it is open to anybody with enough of an intellect to handle it. You just decide NOT to be a victim. Shit happens to good people all the time, but somehow our society is NOT the society of our grandparents and theirs before them; it is one where many people are brought up to believe that the state has an absolute duty to protect them from their own frailties and lack of backbone.

      The best way to deal with words you do not like is not to read them. And if you can't avoid that, then not to pass them on in a deliberate attempt to gather a mob. It's simple, it's effective... it just requires people to grow up.

      Delete
  6. Margaret Thatcher was a prime minister!! Who chose her career, made her own enemies. She chose to be in the public light and died of a stroke. A murdered 2 year old and 96 dead at a football match is hardly the same to compare is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And neither of them are here to take offence. Please read my reply above.

      Delete
    2. Old Holborn accused James Bulger's mother of being to blame for his murder for "raising him in Liverpool". She IS here to take offence, and rumour is that her family made the actual police complaint. So what's your point? I'm sick of internet warriors thinking they don't have to face the consequences of being attention-seeking whores. Also, he lives in this country, we have laws about racist comments; he chose his own fate, the fucking dumbass.

      Delete
    3. So, where do you stop? Your language is pretty inflammatory, should I take offence at it? You can agree, disagree, agree to disagree or just plain ignore. Offence can only be taken if you let mere words get to you.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous: Im certainly not condoning what OH said but you appear to be condoning much if the vile comments and actions taken against Thatcher as you attempt o justify it.

      Delete
  7. @vodkamademedoit19 April 2013 at 11:29

    When they're directly tweeted for the purpose of causing offence and baiting a kick off? That's not free speech. That's causing offence. It's not even a question of free speech.
    Plus,the reason they aren't here to defend themselves is why there's such a barrage of abuse.
    Why bait the hook and cry about it when they bite?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely a bite in this case is a reply in kind, not death threats and police action. Funny how people were so quiet when Lady Thatcher was getting such abuse both before and after she died. Difference is she would just laugh at you for being the thick cunts you are.

      @nby83 on twitter by the way, I care not one bit what you think of me.

      Delete
    2. Seems to me they did reply in kind, seeing as how some of his initial comments (before ANY of this really kicked off)included "all Scousers should be dunked in acid at birth", "die Scousers die", and other such intelligent, witty remarks... They sound pretty violent to me.

      Delete
    3. Why bite at all? Doesn't that just make his point for him?

      Delete
    4. So what if someone causes offence? How old are you that you can't cope with being offended? The idea that scousers or muslims or trannies or whoever is playing the victim card the loudest this week should be protected from offence at all costs is laughable. If free speech doesn't cover doing that, what is the point of it?

      Delete
  8. Funny, Mr George Galloway, considered an exemplar or "One that is worthy of imitation; a model" still hasn't been arrested for tweeting what the media reported as controversial and heinous comments in the minutes that followed the announcement of the late Margaret Thatcher's death.
    It is also reported he continued to rant, that he hoped to disrupt the funeral.
    Clearly his growing number of twitter followers, now some 126,828 were not offended by his opinions.
    Given the recent libel defamation claims by Lord McAlpine, it could be argued that with a higher profile / follower numbers, Mr Galloway could at some point find himself pursued for his 'word terrorism'.
    In the meantime, he has to be extremely careful not to do too many RTs, or he may find his account suspended.... Yeah - go figure.




    ReplyDelete
  9. Words. Just words. See how the just bounce the fuck right off me? Try that for size.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I see a few have missed the point here - You might not like what you hear or read, but people have the right to say things whether it is tasteful or not, sadly this 'right' has been watered down over the years through the actions of the PC brigade and their 'namby pamby' cohortes to criminalize anything we say. Changing the law does not change the person, however vile he or she may be. As an example, I have a very low opinion of the Constabulary in general, I see them as corrupt and self-serving and do very little to help the community and have on occasion mentioned this face-to-face, resulting in trumped up section 5 charges later to be withdrawn. This is literally an attack on my 'right' to say as I please. A.C.A.B is still in force.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I didnt know as a country we have been given all these apparant rights? Excuse my ignorance but what judical law tells us "you have the right to be racist? " could you clarify that please? Seems freedom speech is totally different to what I thought it was. If the said man was innocent Im sure he would not have been arrested. Anyway yes, words are words. But this case is not in the same league as it 1st seems

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He hasn't been arrested. You don't understand the notion of free speech. But I will defend your right to display your ignorance.

      Delete
    2. "If the said man was innocent Im sure he would not have been arrested."

      Yep, innocent people are never ever arrested. The police are entirely infallible.

      Delete
    3. We are not given rights. They exist. Rights can only be taken away, not given.

      Delete
    4. Is this a measure of how far this country has been Continentalized? People think the law grants us rights now? This, not immigration, is what John Major (of whom I'm not generally a great fan) was talking about when he complained of Britain being “turned into a foreign country”.

      Unlike many other countries, some of them uncomfortably close, we have the right to do anything that is not expressly prohibited by law. (And that's only in law. There are plenty of rights circumscribed by law that damn well shouldn't have been.) We are free men and women under the rule of law. That's why the British legal tradition and our sovereignty are so important, because in global terms, this situation is not normal. No wonder they're being sold down the river if people aren't being brought up to understand this.

      Delete
  12. To mangle an old saying, if you're going to start a precedent of identifying people you don't like online, start by digging two graves.

    Just for my own amusement, I spent some of last night doing some google searches some of the noisiest and nastiest scousers crowing about Old Holborn. I type "scousers" in quotes because, predictably, few of them live in Liverpool. Yes I found their addresses. And their real names. And their workplaces. And their sports clubs. And their wives. And their kids. And their newborn baby in one case. And plenty of helpful photos of all of these. Just as well I'm not a mental with nothing to do this weekend, innit?

    Now this is just me but if I had a wife and a baby I would not be spending my evenings picking vicious fights with strangers on heated topics online, and indeed claiming it's justified to take such fights offline... while leaving enough information for anyone taking umbrage at me to come after me and my young family. In fact I would go as far as to consider anyone who did that to be as thick as fucking pigshit.

    Because, you know what, not everyone will see things from your point of view. Some people may not see you as the victim taking justified revenge, but as a nasty cunt using tragedies he was probably too young even remember to work out his personal frustrations in life, and who maybe needs some of his own medicine.

    Fine if you really are a hard-man loner Clint Eastwood type who doesn't care who come sto your door, but pretty fucking selfish if you're typing this shit with your baby sleeping in the next room.

    Just a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It apparently seems to have changed from being freedom of speech to a personal liable attack when he accused jamie bulgers mum to be somehow responsible for the death of her son. Apparently it was her who reported the troll to the police. So it was the attack on her not his freedom of speech which has changed the scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It was said in a different context-- that of accommodating people of different cultural norms to one's own-- but the so-called "Rivers of Blood" speech (itself something of a misnomer), which was dealt with by the low-tech flamers of its day in much the same way as Old Holborn's tweets (no equivalence being implied, except as to reaction to them), spoke to a phenomenon in which the good basically decent people would be put upon and would need to suffer in silence lest they be branded some sort of hater, a practice which, if carried to an extreme, would essentially give anyone other than Joe and Josie Average carte blanche to do or say anything with impunity, whilst J & J A would, for practical purposes, become second-class citizens in their own land, unable, due to societally-induced self-censorship, to respond to any of this lest their lives take a grievous turn for having spoken openly like the boy observing the naked Emperor.

    But of course, Enoch Powell was an evil racist, so we mustn't credit anything he said, oh dearie me, no. How could I be so foolish as to think there might be anything worthwhile in anything that old fool said forty years ago?

    ReplyDelete