Nothing exercises the Libertarian sense of impending moral outrage so much as those two little words ‘Free Speech’. It is said by some to be the very definition of Libertarianism.
I consider myself to be a Libertarian; I believe that I possess a free will and that I should be free to do whatever I wish with my person and my property without state intervention, and I extend to others the same ability to do as they wish with their persons and their property.
However, there are some who would describe themselves as Libertarian who maintain that it is an ideological freedom of thought and speech which means that they can say whatever they want, wherever they want, about whomever they want. Indeed, I am oft amused by a pair of camp hysterics who whinny piteously whenever my name is mentioned, so offended are they by my refusal to abide by ‘their‘ rules of Libertarianism – surely an oxymoron, but one that they are happy to expound on to anyone silly enough to listen to them, the end result of which is an increase in visitors to my blog every time they sound off, so I shan’t complain!
Free Speech is rather like Free Love, a utopian ideal that is fine for the hale and hearty, but has a nasty tendancy to damage the frail and the feeble at its outer edges. One only has to bring rape, incest or paedophilia into the equation to realise that Free Love must actually have limits, and those limits are the points at which either other people become damaged or become involved not of their free will. So it is with Free Speech.
Dick Puddlecote invoked the memory of Amaral’s Video on the McCann saga, and suggested that the Italian legislation proposed would mean that the ‘blogosphere would cease to be able to provide a small guy with the means to highlight corruption/hypocrisy/mendacity and any other wrongdoing, by someone who has a bigger bank account and/or a decent solicitor’ . Well I disagree Dick – it would mean that he would have to apologise after 48 hours if he had got his facts wrong/was not able to prove his facts, not that he would be silenced in the first place.
I see no reason why I should not be expected to issue an apology or even a retraction if I have got something wrong nor any reason, more importantly, why I should expect to be some sort of ‘sacred cow’ that is allowed to say or do anything I like simply because this is the blogosphere.
I don’t demand the ability to hurt others as the price of my Libertarianism.
(Some of your knees must be tired jerking at this point – would you like a short rest whilst I digress?)
Dick brought up the McCann saga, so having just achieved 14 days without nicotine, I’m just mad enough now to howl at the moon or even brook discussion of the affair once more, despite having sworn never to do so again.
In the last few days, a motley gang of exponents of Free Speech, having tired of talking amongst themselves (and this group expressly excludes anybody who doesn’t believe that Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a and that her parents are culpable in some way – so much for free speech!) has broken free of the blogosphere, and under cover of darkness, sloped off to the one place that you might have thought better informed on the Madeleine saga than anywhere else – and under the pretext of ‘enlightening’ those who might disagree with them, have been posting leaflets listing the reasons why they believe the parents culpable, to all their neighbours in the small village of Rothley.
That is stalking dangerously close to vigilantism, or the free speech version of rape.
Amaral’s video listed the various avenues which had been explored by the police and showed some of the evidence they had discovered – evidence that was not sufficient to charge the parents with any crime. I see no reason why that should not be discussed. I see no reason why the case should not be discussed. But I can see a million reasons why people who have decided that they are more swayed by the ‘insufficient evidence’ than the parent’s protestations of innocence, should be prevented from provocatively scurrying round the neighbours, in the twilight, delivering written ‘proof’ of the parents guilt – to the parents of the McCann twin’s school friends.
That is where an absolute defence of free speech can lead – and is why I cannot support it. The vulnerable have to have some protection from the harm that words can do.
OK, Knees, by the right, Quick Jerk……..
{ 36 comments }
I would say that if Libertarianism (or even libertarianism) has a fundamental rule it would be the non-aggression axiom. “You will not initiate force or fraud against another person’s life, liberty or property”. Screaming abuse into someone’s face, literally or metaphorically, I would think is an act of initiation of force.
Just my opinion.
Absolument, C’etait le raison d’asylum. Il y a des proprietes de faire.
Libel and slander laws exist for this purpose.
Sorry always seems to be the hardest word….plus admitting you have made a complete T#at of yourself.
‘Broken free of the blogosphere’ – that is your problem, not what is said on a blog.
I would need to read the leaflet. However I wonder if they will try to prove libellous content in court. Could be fun.
Congratulations on the 14 days. Just got a new girlfriend that is reluctant to engage in post cigarette contact. Seems I will soon be joining you on that wagon.
Roger,
I have heard word that they are more likely to go for harassment -which is a criminal, imprisonable, offence, rather than libel which is civil.
14 days of absoltuely Hell – I apologise for the quality of blogging everyone, it is a miracle that I have got anything up there!
Roger,
Just re-read your comment – the McCann’s don’t have to prove libellous content………under UK law this disgraced ex-solicitor Bennett has to prove that what he says is true – much more fun!
Personally I think he is just after the personal publicity, as he was with the Barrymore/Lubbock case. He seems to jump on any bandwagon, and even describes himself as a ‘politician’ on the basis of having stood in as leader of UKIP for three whole days!
The trouble is, I feel so free to speak I can’t think of a single thing to say. Which makes a change.
Don’t tell me you’ve given up smoking too – that’ll make Mr G’s day………
I can think of lots of things to say, but I’d better not.
Re: giving up smoking – ‘fraid not, but I expect I’ll find I’ve cut down a lot on Friday…
… but I have taken up Sudoku for Simpletons Who Should Really Only Have Round-Ended Scissors and sometimes I find I have been pondering so long about where the obvious 3 goes that sometimes I forget to light up…
I haven’t been the same since the Daily Mail abandoned their 144 square suduko – and haven’t bought the Daily Mail since!
Quick, where do I get Niacin from – which hedgerow, I shall crawl on my hands and feet this very instant!
Henry, this is cruelty to dumb animals, get back here and tell me where to get Niacin from at 10 o’ clock at night in France, I demand it!
If you want to give anything up take megadoses of Niacin and you will get over the addiction easily
I always found the Mail sudoku a bit gross…
gross, groan, get yer coat……..Saul
Reading up on this Niacin business – a soluable B3 vitamin – but weirdly a connection to scientology…….
http://www.healingdaily.com/detoxification-diet/niacin.htm
If I return as a non-smoking scientologist, Blame Henry!
I have just had a phonecall saying the hungry hunter-gatherer will be home for his dinner in 20 minutes; the only snag is, I haven’t done him any dinner so I’d better get busy with the tin-opener..
Nooooo! Don’t turn to Scientology, take a little holiday, a little trip around the Med or something. Mind you, I’ve never fancied a Cruise myself.
Cruise, hmmn, only reaches to the knees, hmnn, not a lot of use……..
…..those who consume more than 2 drinks of alcohol daily, should not take high-dose niacin……
Next!
No, stay at holmes.
Although this may not really be a subject on which one should kid, man.
go on, have a fag, you know you want to….just one…you’ve already proved you can do without it…….
/*evil*
I gave up giving up smoking a long time ago. It was easy.
Giving up smoking is for quitters.
Reminds me of good old Hemingway, who said giving up smoking was the easiest thing to do; in fact he was doing it every day ….
I can give it up last thing at night for seven eight hours no problem, its trying to give it up in the day thats difficult.
Try and sleep 10-12 hours …?
Sorry … just kidding. Wishing you wisdom and strength
Is it worth it? All that stress. I’d rather give up Gin.
Giving up smoking must be hell. I’ve been smoking a pipe for nearly 50years, thought I might have to give up a few years ago because of the cost of tobacco but then found a 20 minute trip to Spain solved that one – 5 packs of tobacco over there is the same as 2 here. But if you must Anna you must.
Natures Best will send you a catalogue but in the mean time google Patrick Holford Read the new optimum nutrition for the mind.
(Im not saying he has all the answers but it helps)
I went to bed 10.10pm Desolée
It is quite amusing that comments are closed in the Daily Mcann newspaper link you have posted, no comments on a story of free speech gone to far? another cul-de-sac .
To prove harassment they will have to really have two examples of being likely to be “put in fear of harassment alarm or distress” which is of course a matter for the courts to adjudicate on.
The one example of leaflet dropping is unlikely to succeed , they could go a for a civil harassment case with a balance of probability , but you can then use all sorts of avenues closed off in a criminal trial, including evidence of opinion , which could be reported upon.
I would like to see the Leicestershire Police , who were of course the UK partner for their Portuguese counterparts , have a go with this , there are certain detectives who have knowledge of the Mcann case that may not wish to see a judicial request for disclosure in a poxy harassment charge.
A timely warning, Ms Raccoon – I myself have been the recipient of no less than 7 examples of leaflet harassment, this very week. 4 were from takeaway food emporiums, offering bizarre foreign foods, and there were also unrequested missives from a double-glazing firm, a local councillor and, most surprisingly of all, a religious establishment – how standards have fallen. Following the example of the Rothley residents, I contacted my local police station, who were ludicrously unhelpful – they also seemed to confuse me with a Mr Dick Head, which was less than confidence-inspiring, I must say. That approach proving unsatisfactory, I then contacted my solicitors, Norfolk and Chance, with a view to taking legal action – they also seemed to confuse me with a certain Mr R. Sole, but, after some delay, they did suggest that I might have a case against the church, whose claim that “Jesus died for our sins” may suggest some personal involvement on my part. Judging by the gales of happy laughter in the background, I can only presume that they have high hopes of my action – I look forward to my day in court and to striking a firm blow against the forces of darkness, wherever they may gather. God bless the King!
Comments on this entry are closed.