Freedom of speech includes the right to be angry


by Sunny
30th October, 2009 at 10:14 am    

Guido Fawkes, the blogger who issues legal letters on behalf of MPs only because he wants to be like “conan the barbarian” wrote a post a couple of days ago titled ‘Freedom of Speech Includes “Hate Speech”‘ that I didn’t see earlier.

The funny thing is that these so-called defenders of free speech (except, apparently, when they want to issue legal threats) think this is some new argument. It’s not. Perhaps I should reiterate it: people who make homophobic, racist, sexist or even inflammatory statements should not be banned or legislated against. I’ve been for free speech and against banning speech that “offends” various religious, racial, right-wing groups for ages. See here and here and here as quick examples.

But the thing is lefties never actually argue for hate speech to be banned or censored. We just want to register our anger when someone says something offensive. They have the legal right to be offensive and we have the right to complain to advertisers and broadcasters. My legal right to swear at mad libertarians is not being curbed just because I can’t do it on the BBC. In the same way if someone offensive is taken off air they’re not losing their right to free speech but have violated the terms they’re working under.

If people complain to advertisers the next time someone like Jan Moir writes a nasty article – then it’s up to the advertisers to take action if they so choose. But that is not censorship. That is our legal right as citizens to use democratic, economic and other frameworks to punish those people.

But it seems such a simple argument is too difficult to understand, and so the only way such numpties can frame this debate is by pretending that lefties want to ban things. No we don’t. Then he ends with:

You don’t want to end up like Sunny Hundal, a man so right-on as to be a walking parody. Once in a fit of rage, yet so conflicted by political correctness, all he could do was call Guido “you bloody human!”

.. which is rather amusing. Anyone who knows me I can swear like the Asian version of Samuel L Jackson, and if I was angry with Paul Staines I’d have no problems calling him a drunk-driving, limp-dick, fat, pathetic excuse for a baboon who should have been pulverised by A.A. Gill but escaped by scaring people with his ugly mug. But I don’t ever recall being “in rage” while Guido has been around and am generally quite calm in real life :)
I didn’t realise he had to resort to making up shit just to make a political point.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Blog,Humour,Media






29 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Freedom of speech includes the right to be angry http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6367


  2. Thomas Swingler

    RT @pickledpolitics New blog post: Freedom of speech includes the right to be angry http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6367


  3. Jaimé Molloy

    RT @pickledpolitics New blog post: Freedom of speech includes the right to be angry http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6367


  4. Ryan Bestford

    'Freedom of speech includes the right to be angry' http://bit.ly/3ktxxC (via @PickledPolitics)




  1. Guido Fawkes — on 30th October, 2009 at 10:31 am  

    Let me refresh your memory: you wrote it to me when demanding that I take down an amusing picture of you slapping some girl’s arse. Remember?

    So perhaps you could withdraw the suggestion that I made it up.

    You ain’t no Malcolm Tucker by the way. A good insult has wit and memorable novelty. That was more like a little list.

  2. cjcjc — on 30th October, 2009 at 10:39 am  

    But the thing is lefties never actually argue for hate speech to be banned or censored.

    What???!!!

    That is simply not true.

    PS what is this now, volume 24355212 of “Why Guido and Dale Must Be Ignored”?

  3. Rumbold — on 30th October, 2009 at 11:08 am  

    I think it is an important distinction to remember. Complaining/criticising a piece isn’t the same as calling for it to be censored. Only if you demand the withdrawl/alteration of the piece by an outside body/the law are you engaging in censorship.

  4. Guido Fawkes — on 30th October, 2009 at 11:17 am  

    I tell you what if you can’t remember I’ll have a search and see if I can find the picture and the quote to put up at lunchtime.

    Should jog your memory.

  5. FlyingRodent — on 30th October, 2009 at 11:28 am  

    PS what is this now, volume 24355212 of “Why Guido and Dale Must Be Ignored”?

    That would, indeed, be a waste of time. Of course, it’s always worth repeating that Guido and Dale are a pair of self-promoting, bullshit hacks. A lot of folk don’t seem to realise that the pair of them would cheerfully blow all of the participants in this year’s Grand National, horses included, in exchange for a few bob in their pockets and the chance to pimp whatever cretinous piece of apolitical guff they’re spazzing out over on any given day.

    I mean no offence to either of them by making these entirely accurate points, of course.

  6. Ravi Naik — on 30th October, 2009 at 11:56 am  

    .. which is rather amusing. Anyone who knows me I can swear like the Asian version of Samuel L Jackson

    Sunny, I am not sure what crowd would be impressed by your abilities of swearing like a sailor. Probably Guido Fawkes would be impressed, but you need to ask yourself why would you want to please an all gimmick and no substance blogger.

  7. Aliceeeeeeeee — on 30th October, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

    Wow. Arguuing over who is better, who is right or wrong? Getting all harcore with the keyboard are we? Shut up, and let people have their own opinion, no matter how much you dis agree with it. I am only in highschool, and i know better than to tell someone i dont agree with their thought on something. Thats what they think is right, wrong, or whatever. So just leave them alone, let them be. Immature ass motherfuckers,

  8. Sunny — on 30th October, 2009 at 1:55 pm  

    Let me refresh your memory: you wrote it to me when demanding that I take down an amusing picture of you slapping some girl’s arse. Remember?

    So perhaps you could withdraw the suggestion that I made it up.

    You mean when you nicked a picture that does not belong to you and put it up on your blog when you had no rights to it?

    Is that your commitment to property rights?

    Let me know when you find the email when I called you “a bloody human”.

  9. Sunny — on 30th October, 2009 at 2:09 pm  

    I’ve just gone through my sent items and don’t note any such thing. I did call him a twat though, which is true.

    And now in a huff because I called him a liar he threatens to put up that pic again. HEh

  10. Random Guy — on 30th October, 2009 at 2:27 pm  

    Going by his twattish behaviour from his 2 posts, I think I may have to concur with your assessment Sunny.

  11. Clairwil — on 30th October, 2009 at 2:28 pm  

    @Sunny,
    There is a picture of you slapping a girls arse on the loose? Good God I didn’t you you had it in you! Is this picture the Pickled Politics asnswer to the famous snap of Andrew Neil in vest with young lady friend?

  12. Guido Fawkes — on 30th October, 2009 at 2:40 pm  

    Yeah that one. You posted it in the comments.

    I think you misunderstand copyright law. I am excerpting the picture for the purposes of critical review, as exempted under the copyright act.

  13. Kismet Hardy — on 30th October, 2009 at 4:02 pm  

    This thread is childish. Even for me

    Anger is an energy, as the sad punk said to the speechless baby with the rattle

  14. Sunny — on 30th October, 2009 at 5:02 pm  

    I am excerpting the picture for the purposes of critical review, as exempted under the copyright act.

    Yeah right. You steal pictures from people without their consent and you’ve also issued legal threats when you get caught out.

    A belief in free speech my arse.

    Yeah that one. You posted it in the comments.

    I’m sorry, do you have any evidence that’s me or are you chatting shit again?

    cjcjc – I’ve come to the conclusion you’re a cheap Chinese imitation of a sophisticated Japanese smapbot gone wrong, and the only thing they can get you to do these days is post the same comments on the same blogs. Life must be harsh,

  15. highfieldoval — on 30th October, 2009 at 6:53 pm  

    ‘Freedom of speech includes the right to be angry.’

    Well you go off and be angry and stop asking the rest of us to shut up! Because that’s what you’re doing it’s just that you don’t have the courage to say it explicitly, you get advertisers or regulators to do it for you.

    How tenuous the grip on your argument that rather than engage in robust debate with your opponents, of which there are many, you go crying to ofcom. Pathetic.

  16. Shatterface — on 30th October, 2009 at 7:14 pm  
  17. Shatterface — on 30th October, 2009 at 7:29 pm  

    By the way, why was this thread on LibCon

    http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/10/29/guido-benefits-from-dorries-mcbride-settlement/

    - shut down so quickly?

  18. Katy Newton — on 30th October, 2009 at 10:30 pm  

    I agree with cjcjc that it’s a bit much to say that lefties “never” call for banning hate speech. I would say that both left wingers and right wingers have been known to ban people from saying stuff they don’t like, and that generally the tendency to regulate is a leftwing tendency rather than a libertarian tendency, but there are plenty of leftwingers who are 100% in favour of free speech and plenty of rightwingers who aren’t.

    I don’t hold any brief for G. Fawkes but I don’t think that threatening someone with legal action for accusing them of a criminal offence, which is what Tim Ireland did and Aaron linked to on LC, is fairly described as trying to shut down freedom of speech, if I’m honest. If someone accused me of theft I’d certainly ask them to produce some evidence or keep their mouths shut.

  19. Amrit — on 31st October, 2009 at 1:59 am  

    you go crying to ofcom

    Yeah, Sunny. How DARE you ‘go crying to ofcom’ instead of turning up on other people’s blogs to abuse them randomly and anonymously, like REAL MEN do?

    God forbid that bigots should ever have to face the consequences of their free speech, eh ‘highfieldoval’?

    Think of this way: the speech is free, but if it’s bigoted crap, the speaker pays through public reaction to it. Given that we have a surfeit of shit-talkers (though we’ll never get a lead on America, what with Glen Beck), supply is outstripping demand and people will demonstrate that. Rules of the market :-D

  20. cjcjc — on 31st October, 2009 at 9:59 am  

    Well I’m not the one who appears obsessed by Dale and Staines while at the same time crying that they should be ignored.

    Though perhaps I should have just made my main point.

    To say “But the thing is lefties never actually argue for hate speech to be banned or censored” is just laughable.

  21. Rumbold — on 31st October, 2009 at 11:41 am  

    Wonderful, Shatterface (#16).

  22. Sunny — on 31st October, 2009 at 12:56 pm  

    Cjcjc – perhaps you’re an Indian knock-off of a Japanese robot. Which means you’ll act even more wierdly and strangely but perform worse.

  23. Auntie Vera — on 1st November, 2009 at 5:04 am  

    Anger?

    Angry about the trafficking of wimmin?

    Or angry about headline-seeking media pimps and shallow-brained policians?

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/earticle/7625/

  24. Eric Pearson — on 2nd November, 2009 at 5:34 pm  

    As Democrats of the Democratic Party, we are joining together in seeking reform within the Democratic Party.

    Many of our elected representatives within the Democratic Party are no longer following in the time-honored footsteps laid down by the founding fathers of our great Nation. More importantly, we as democrats see our elected representatives within the Democratic Party abandoning the values and principles as set forth within the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

    Nonetheless, this is only the beginning of our problems as Democrats, for the current Democratic Party leadership is tainted by corruption and being taken over by Socialists. These Socialists are clearly a threat to everything we hold sacred in America, and they are gaining evermore control over our Democratic Party, our Nation, and the American people.

    Despite this, we as Democrats can restore control of the Democratic Party back to the party members. All we need to do is cut off donations to the local, state, and national headquarters of the Democratic Party, and to make sure the donations are made directly to patriotic and honorable Democratic Party candidates that are not corrupt and/or Socialist.

    So please help spread the message to everyone of our fellow Democrats. Also, don’t forget to contact and request the Unions and other outside contributors to follow our lead as patriotic Americans.

    Thank you, and God Bless America.

    Web site: http://www.democraticreformparty.com
    Blog site: http://blog.democraticreformparty.com

  25. Tim Ireland — on 3rd November, 2009 at 4:46 pm  

    Katy Newton: I did produce that evidence. In fact, I published it.

    Paul Staines’ threat to sue was nothing but a dishonest attempt to intimidate me into silence.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.