We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

The right to be offensive and wrong

One of the things that any reasonably consistent defender of freedom realises is that freedom means the freedom to do or say stupid, offensive or silly things. (A key proviso, of course, being the freedom to do that so long as you are not imposing your views on others, such as by entering private property and spraying graffiti on the walls, or posting offensive comments on a privately run blog such as this in violation of the blog-owner’s house rules). The recent case of Liam Stacey, a young man jailed for up to 56 days for making offensive comments about the Bolton footballer, Fabrice Muamba, is a particularly bad case.

Mr Muamba is a black footballer who, over a week ago, suffered a heart attack during a football match. He had to be rushed to hospital and is in a critical condition, but it is hoped he will recover. His case has touched the hearts of even the most partisan supporters of the game; people from across the sport, not just in this country, have posted messages of support. Some might sneer that this is typical sentimental guff, but I disagree and it seems genuinely meant and rather a good reflection on a game that often gets its share of abuse.

Now this young student who used Twitter to make crass remarks is obviously an idiot. But it seems to me to be utterly nonsensical to suggest that he should be punished for it by the law. (We don’t have big enough jails to hold all the bigots in this country, let alone anywhere else). He has not, as far as I can tell, incited violence against Mr Muamba or his family and friends. If he had done that, then there might be more of a case.

And where exactly are we going to draw the line? Those internet users who post messages hoping for the death of Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher or other political figures – are they going to be prosecuted? (I can think of a few people who might be in quite serious trouble on that score). Should the odious Baroness Tonge, whom I denounced for her anti-semitic remarks the other day, be slung in jail? (No). Should those who preach that non-believers in some god or other will burn in hell be put away? Should people who send jokes to friends and inadvertently offend someone be sent to jail? (I offended someone once many years ago this way and got carpeted by my then boss, to my shame). What about stand-up comedians like Frankie Boyle or Jimmy Carr who say nasty things, such as about the Queen, Scotsmen or children with Down’s Syndrome? I personally think these “jokes” are bloody awful but I certainly don’t think people should be sent to the slammer. Instead, we just make sure we don’t pay to watch these characters again.

Of course, in making the case for freedom of speech for yobs, idiots and bigots, it is important to be crystal clear that tolerance for such behaviour is not the same as approval of it. We tolerate that which we do not ourselves approve. There is no doubt that this rather ignorant and unpleasant young man has learned a painful lesson, but it would have been far better had this student learned the perils of making unpleasant comments not by going to jail – places which should be occupied by genuine criminals such as robbers and rapists – but by incurring the ridicule and contempt of those who rightly regard racism and bigotry with scorn.

Defending liberty, if it means anything, means defending the freedoms of those you might personally regard as repulsive. Being a libertarian sometimes demands that we take such a stand, however uncomfortable.

49 comments to The right to be offensive and wrong

  • It makes a nonsense of the notion Britain is a ‘free country’ if being a politically incorrect on Twitter gets you prosecuted. In fact this is deeply repressive.

  • James Hargrave

    I agree totally with the poster and P de H. I’m afraid that I find even more offensive the kind of claptrap spewing from the mouth of the ‘District Judge’ – read Stipendiary Magistrate with a fancy title and ideas above its station that titular inflation encourages (cf. the soi-disant Supreme Court) – who might more reasonably be locked away for considerably longer than 56 days as an utter public menace: a sanctimonious humbug of the worst sort. All right, the young man’s comments were crass, but no doubt a drunken 21-year-old before the era of such ghastly things as Twitter made equally uncouth remarks (I do not exclude myself). And I defend the full his right to make a fool of himself – which is where this matter shoudl have ended.

  • I am fascinated to know what it was that that was Tweeted, so I can judge for myself the extent of its awfulness (hence, perhaps :)) improving my avoidance of committing such a crime).

    However, doubtless, I am not allowed to see it, as publishing it again would be (equally) a criminal offence.

    Such is the brilliance of law against words.

    Best regards

  • Alisa

    (We don’t have big enough jails to hold all the bigots in this country, let alone anywhere else)

    There’s a fairly simple solution to that little problem: just turn the entire country into one big prison – with so many laws, regulations and prohibitions, everyone must be guilty of something or other. Some how I get the feeling though that my brilliant idea is not that original…

  • Poosh

    You can see them here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE

    When he said lol Whoever dead? People responded to that Twitter – and then he responded to them (you can see who he is talking towards, I believe, in the video). He is not racist towards the Footballer as such, but to other Twitter users. He used “*igger* once, and “w*g” twice and makes a reference to cot*on p*ck%ng once.

    I assume he was punished for the racist comments and not the LOL he’s dead comment as that would truly be insane, but then, who knows? Anyone know?

  • RRS

    Here again is the example of the rules of policy, established by legislation, displacing the Rule of Law.

    In Policy, the legislation attempts to direct human conduct.

    The Rule of Law monitors human conduct to provide that it shall be “just.”

    Just conduct under Common Law results from the performance of the commonly recognized and accepted (whether codified or not) obligations of the members of the social order.

    Rules of policy are efforts to establish and impose obligations (that are not spontaneuosly generated by them) on members of a society in attempts to construct that society to conform to specific concepts of the proper nature of human conduct and relations. They are by character and effect totalitarian.

    So, how does this legislation come to have effect amongst the peoples of the Common Law?

  • Midwesterner

    There is another facet to free speech. I want the bastards to be sailing under their true colors. I want them to self identify and save me the learning curve.

    In Wisconsin, judges are under ‘ethics’ rules that prohibit them from political expression that might indicate the biases they bring to the court. The result is that in Wisconsin, like Pelosi’s legislation, you have to elect the judge first in order to find out what you have voted for.

    Free speech protects more than just the speakers; it allows listeners to identify some of the most detestable actors from a safe distance.

  • Laird

    Personally, I don’t find taking such a stand “uncomfortable”.

  • SlowRoast

    You are aware of the entirety of what he tweeted, right?
    While I wholeheartedly agree that most bigots should be spared jail as fortunately stupidity is not yet a crime, what Liam said arguably crossed the line from merely misinformed to something more sinister.

    Watch this for the whole story.

  • Jason

    Thank you for that SlowRoast, interesting to see exactly what this was all about.

    Sure, he tweeted some pretty vile and stupid things, I now know, and he’s certainly not the sort of bloke whose views I’d want to hear.

    But I don’t think the degree of vileness or stupidity changes anything. The cretin has been jailed for words, and – no matter how vile or stupid they were – that is intolerable.

  • Alisa

    ‘Just conduct under
    Common Law results from
    the performance of the
    commonly recognized and
    accepted (whether
    codified or not) obligations of the members of the
    social order. Rules of policy are efforts
    to establish and impose
    obligations (that are not
    spontaneuosly generated
    by them) on members of
    a society in attempts to construct that society to
    conform to specific
    concepts of the proper
    nature of human conduct
    and relations. They are by
    character and effect totalitarian.’

    Indeed, RRS – a very perceptive remark.

  • In my view anyone advocating statism is engaging in ‘incitement to theft’… So presumably I should be calling for such people to be jailed for their views, no?

  • RRS

    While I think the whole bit about the use of “twitter,” or the contents of “speech,” is immaterial in comparison to the perversion of the functions of Law, I will asK:

    If people are to know what is “said” and the way it is expressed on twitter, do they not have to seek it out?

    What is said there is not “forced” upon the sensitivities of others is it? Not even so much as the rantings of a yob in a Pub.

    So what made this offensive was that people could find one’s attitudes, not that those attitudes were forced upon people.

    What else shall the noble “public” with its sensitivities find, and where, with a bit more digging?

  • Dom

    SlowRoast — That’s it? Except for the racial stuff, I’ve heard worse from High School kids. Sorry, but no matter how I look at it, what I find truly, deeply horrifying is that so many people called the police about this.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I think Laird can answer for himself and I don’t think he was saying anything other than he is comfortable with defending the freedom of people to say what they want, however noxious. Laird has never struck me as having remotely “sinister” views (he’s always struck me as a considerate and well-informed commenter).

    I wanted to make the point in using the word “uncomfortable” that I do sometimes get squeamish about defending some of the jerks out there, but I still do it because I know a key principle is involved.

  • Poosh

    He crossed no such line. Some of the things he said were mildly racist (did he call for anyone to be put in the gas chambers?). He was drunk as can be (and you can see that from his previous twitter comments). He was insulting everyone, left right and centre. He said a few racist words (some of which are perfectly acceptable to use if you’re not white, for some reason) and he made the co**on pickin% comment. What line did he cross exactly? He was rude and a racist, and he said racist things in a private forum which is open to the public should they choose, but even then they must actively seek his words out to read them. Is this how our democracy died? To appease people who pretend they care about racism?

  • manuel II paleologos

    I suppose some if it boils down to whether the words are likely to incite violence. In this case, the only violence being incited is an urge to punch Mr Stacey in the face. Mainly for his own good.

    Was he being prosecuted for incitement, or simply for being a racist? Clearly if it’s the latter, then seeing as racism is all in the eye of the beholder, it leaves it theoretically impossible to stay out of prison. As a follow-on question, would be interested to know if the Lord McPherson “racism is anything deemed to be racist by the victim” has been tested in common law?

  • Laird

    Johnathan, you are correct: I was addressing the last sentence in your post, saying that I am perfectly comfortable defending even odious speech, not speaking to the specifics of this particular Twitter post (which I haven’t read, and likely won’t). Leaving aside incitement to violence (a tricky issue, beyond the scope of this thread), I don’t care what nasty things people say. No one has any right not to be offended. Grow a pair, and deal with it. In fact, taking offense at any remark is entirely your choice. That someone chooses to be offended by mere speech says much about the character of that person, not the speaker.

  • Hmm

    I agree with manuel II, Incitement is the big question… if someone is trying to incite a criminal act that is in itself criminal then that can and should be stomped on. (Definition of what is criminal then becomes the problem) Twitter creates and multiplies many problems in that it is both very public and due to the minimalistic/coded nature of the communication “twits” are very likely to be misunderstood. Too easily one man’s freedom becomes another man’s chains.

    If you intend to own a freedom then you must also get to own the consequences of that freedom.

    From that point do you choose to wait till incitement causes criminal activity or do you act in advance to prevent it.

    Twitter should be renamed “facepalm” – seriously – it currently reigns supreme in its utility to create myriad multi-dimensional holes for its users to fall into.
    It’s very much a case of “Caveat twittor”.

  • veryretired

    The true object of this type of judicial action is not the person who says uncomfortable things and is wrong, but those who point out uncomfortable things and are right.

    The chill is directed, not at the foolish and bigoted, but the thoughtful and principled.

  • I don’t even agree that “inciting” speech needs to be stamped upon by the state’s organs.
    Speech is speech is speech and it does not and cannot harm anyone.
    An individual choosing to harm another individual is entirely culpable whether or not it was their own idea.

  • Hmm

    Wh00ps:

    Speech is speech is speech and it does not and cannot harm anyone

    If speech could not harm anyone propaganda would not exist.

    If speech could not harm anyone – there would be no Islam or Marxists or any creed that thrives on fear and hate – for the growth of fear and hate is the aim of their speech. Thru speech they manipulate the pawns to hurt their opponents.

    It is speech that motivates all the chaos and hurt that follows their dogma and actions.

    Such is the power of speech.

  • Alisa

    Sure Hmm, but it only does so indirectly, the point being that only direct harmful actions should be properly retaliated against through the direct action of law.

  • Kim du Toit

    You can see the chilling effects of this nonsense when people are forced to bowderize words like nigger, coon and cotton-picking (!) lest they offend some delicate flower’s sensibilities.

    John Stuart Mill is not only turning in his grave, he’s spinning fast enough to create an alternative source of energy.

  • Hmm

    Alisa, yes, it is indirect in that someone else acts to make the harm, but it is also direct in that it (directly) “directs” the action. It is akin to “conspiracy” – The SHOWING(proof) of active(direct) intent makes the difference.

    “Political Correctness” uses false knowledge of intent and false correlation of unrelated ‘facts’ to make invalid arguments based on lies.

    Truth depends on the ability to prove a thing. Political Correctness depends on people to accept ( refuse to disprove ) lies. It often does so as people become more ‘educated’ to accept that ‘authority’ = proof.

    We shouldn’t underestimate speech as a direct actor in any situation. It is equally important not to assume direct action where no intent is provable. What is imperative, is the ability to spot which is which, and to speak out against the lies of Political Correctness.

    Either way – Twitter makes it almost impossible not to fall foul of both PC and incitement, because intent is so difficult to determine (+ easy to misinterpret/twist) in such a minimalist format.

  • Kim du Toit

    Okay, now that I’ve vented my spleen and cleaned up all the broken crockery, let me say this.

    The corollary to the freedom of speech is that inoffensive speech doesn’t require protection; offensive speech does. The only question that remains is: who decides what constitutes “offensive?” Mill and others said, “Nobody should be allowed to decide that” (and Herbert Spencer added the rider, “…and especially not the State”).

    Hence, “the Pope is Catholic” needs no protection, but “the Pope is a charlatan” probably should (especially during, say, the Renaissance); “Jesse Jackson is an activist” needs no protection, but “Jesse Jackson is a racist hustler” probably should, in today’s politically-correct society.

    Etc.

  • Alisa

    Hmm, a direct action that leads to another direct action is the very definition of ‘indirect’. Also, intent in and of itself is not a punishable offense, although its absence is often considered an ameliorating factor. Keep in mind that we are talking in the legal context of things.

  • Alisa

    BTW, IANAL, but mere speech, no matter how purposeful, should not (does not?) a conspiracy make. A conspiracy, in my moral book, is an active, material cooperation, and as such would normally entail some kind of convergence of mutual interests – a financial transaction (i.e. hiring a hitman) would be one common example.

  • Hmm

    Alisa,

    a direct action that leads to another direct action is the very definition of ‘indirect’

    ahh the trouble with “words”. What’s in a meaning?

    Is the head of a criminal gang a criminal even if he performs no direct criminal act? Not so – because the directing of the direct action is in itself illegal… it is illegal to direct criminal acts.

    Appropriately the military use of the word “command” means both the speech and the manpower under control.

    Any command is a direct action – or maybe I should say is recognised in common speech and in legal matters to be so. It is direct action because it is the prime(and continuing) motive force throughout the action. Without the command the motivation remains in check. Just like pulling a trigger to fire a gun; pulling a trigger is not harmful – unless certain conditions are met and is not illegal unless certain intent is established.

    Alisa, Sorry to keep slogging away at this – but the ability to discriminate such things is one of the most important skills/issues in the battle against PC:

    If we don’t discriminate, between speech that is direct action and speech that isn’t direct action, then the robots that operate on Political Correctness will and do take the opportunity to insert their own false ideas on what constitutes direct action… and this whole post shows what happens when they decide to do that.

    We have to know and maintain our limits and our rules and not let PC officiobots decide them for us. It is all too easy to let the “virtue” of dealing in black and white issues remove our need and ability to discriminate. What I’m really trying to say is: The ability to discriminate is a paramount freedom… as such -freedom of speech requires discrimination – as all freedoms+rules do.

    Judgement is key – zero tolerance/unlimited tolerance is bogus. Applying it to speech is a pain, but is necessary.

    Direct or indirect: we need to maintain personal discrimination to determine whether speech is true/untrue and what consequences follow from its utterence.

  • Alisa

    Alisa, Sorry to keep slogging away at this

    By all means:-)

    What you seem to be missing about both the military and the criminal gang example is that they easily fall into the ‘conspiracy’ category, in that neither a military commander, nor a criminal gang boss do – or even can – confine themselves to mere speech: there is always a material quid pro quo involved in both cases, without which there would be no military and no gang to speak of.

    As to your PC-etc. point, I certainly agree, but that is (or should be, in my book) applicable only in the moral context, not a legal one.

  • Hmm

    Alisa, I don’t get your meaning with regard to the moral -v- legal context…

    Any legal standing without moral basis becomes tyrannical and specious as it is based merely on political whim. The moral context is the setting in which the law is based and the context from it supposedly draws its authority (not from government). What basis is there for any contract/law to exist if there is no moral concept for abiding by/maintaining the terms of contract?

    It is upon the moral context of proof(testable truth) that the line is drawn with regard to speech. It is drawn in an area that is able to show proof of intent so that mere (political) whim can be excluded. At the point of provable intent “speech” = direct action.

    It may not be stated openly as such – but if speech isn’t deemed a direct action at that point it creates some major problems for dealing with humanity.

    If speech doesn’t = direct action at the point of provable intent then what legal reason is there to charge anyone who sends someone out to do harm on their bidding with a criminal offence? – OR – Conversely; If indirect action is criminal in one context (without moral basis) then all people who say ANYTHING at all – any word – any noise uttered or idea suggested by mere hint can then be deemed criminal and that person charged with ANY offense.

    Legal context removed from moral coding drops everything into a quasi-illegal state (Note: not “quasi-legal”, because there would be no fixed legal foundation~ no basis for maintaining contract) as it becomes entirely relative and political (whim based).

  • Laird

    Hmm, the difference between the military officer/criminal gang leader and some random blogger advocating a hostile action is that the former possess authority to compel another person’s action. The miltary officer holds authority by virtue of the chain of command (“legal” authority, if you will) and the criminal gang leader holds authority by virtue of acknowledged leadership, but the source of the authority is irrelevant. In either case the principal is responsible for the actions of his agent. By contrast, some blogger or tweeter (is that a word?) suggesting an illegal course of action possesses no such authority. If I were to here advocate a political assassination* I have no authority of any sort over anyone reading this blog. Thus my remark, however strongly phrased, is not and cannot morally be considered any sort of “direct action” or “conspiracy”, and I have no culpability should anyone here actually act on my suggestion. Everyone reading this is an independent moral agent, responsible for his own actions. So Alisa is correct: absent some form of authority to compel the action, mere speech, however offensive you may find it, should never be criminal.

    * I’m being very careful not to actually do so; I don’t need to attract that kind of attention!

  • Alisa

    Hmm, I absolutely agree with your point that only immoral actions should be illegal. What I am saying, however, is that not every immoral action should also be illegal – that is where I draw the line between the moral and the legal contexts.

  • Hmm

    Alisa, yes, absolutely: Not all immoral actions are (or should ever be) illegal. That ability to legally disciminate is what is so important about the line of separation being drawn between that speech which is direct action and speech that isn’t. Mistakes should be treated leniently while outright intentional harm should be stomped on.

    The ability to discriminate between the two rests on maintaining this line (provided we stick to what is provable) because it is at this point that intent of direct action by proxy is provable. The proxy is provably the weapon in the hand of the author, and the speech is the trigger that fires the proxy. Direct action runs through from intended speech to final objective.

    If that intent is ignored and the speech regarded as mere words of no consequence then all proxy actions become perfect alibis. “Yes that’s correct Officer; it was Miss Scarlet. I didn’t murder anyone – I merely wondered out loud to Miss Scarlet about what might happen if she were to hit Colonel Mustard with the candlestick while he was in the library. Oh yes that’s right – I do inherit it all now – it’s all so sad but, isn’t that lucky for me!” :)

  • Hmm

    Laird, with regard to authority – you say it yourself:

    ” but the source of the authority is irrelevant.”

    All children at some stage get asked something along the lines of: “So – if he told you to jump into the fire would you do it?”

    Usually we should be held accountable for our own actions. Group dynamics provide a slight problem in that regard in that people self assume hierarchical positions within groups. Authority then comes from the hierarchy. Same thing applies to “Twits(?)” The original twit holds authority because he authored it. That’s all it takes. First Twitter = Prime speaker = Authority = Supreme Twit.

  • Alisa

    The original twit holds authority because he authored it.

    Huh? ‘Authority’ is not the same as ‘authorship’.

  • Hmm

    Huh? ‘Authority’ is not the same as ‘authorship’.

    I could have said – “because he set the ball rolling”..Where authorship initiates action the author is the authority due to the group relationship.

  • Alisa

    If you keep stretching it, it will break:-)

  • Hmm

    The flexibility of language never ceases to amaze me! :)

    Humpty Dumpty has a lot to answer for! :p

    Though I’m not really stretching it – more like squeezing lots of it into a smaller area- trying to make words do what they hate most – portray the same variable thing to different people in different circumstances. (shrug!)

  • Alisa

    It’s not the stretching of the language that bothers me, it’s that of the logic. Anyway, agree to disagree until the next round.

  • Hmm

    Honestly, I tried to keep the logic straight and easy to follow but where words and perception are concerned it is tough to choose how best to portray it. With more thought I’d do better job – but I’m just flitting thru while doing other work on the computer.

    PS. I’ve just read another example (via smalldeadanimals) of why its so easy to use twitter to whip up a storm with one ill thought out tweet: (Link)

  • Alisa

    Does it describe how Twitter wields irresistible physical power, previously unknown to mankind, over its followers? If not, I’m not interested.

  • Laird

    Hmm, the source of authority is irrelevant but its existence is not. Absent the authority to direct another’s actions (be that an externally imposed “legal” authority or the self-imposed “moral” authority in a leader-follower relationship), the choice of an individual to follow another’s suggested course of action is that individual’s decision alone; the “suggester” bears no culpability for the action. The military leader is directly responsible for the actions of his subordinates; the criminal gang leader is also so responsible if the failure to follow his orders would result in punishment (this is another form of “externally-imposed” authority); the religious or political leader who exhorts his followers to take a certain course of action, but who lacks any means of enforcing his command, is probably not culpable (unless it can be shown that his followers reasonably fear that he could impose some sort of meaningful penalty for noncompliance); and the blogger bears none at all.

    Without the authority to compel action words are just words, and their utterance should never be criminal.

  • Hmm

    Laird, how about: For no other reason than to do it – Yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre. It would just be one word. No-one has to assume anything by it. But we all know they will.

    If you ever watched “Father Ted” there was one of the episodes that had the Fathers on a plane – and they got a trip to the cockpit and there on the wall was a big red button saying “Do not press”. The words though just words are a command that has to be followed. If it says don’t press it – it’s begging to be pressed… so of course (the halfwit) Father Dougal presses it …. which leads directly to why the episode is called “Flight Into Terror”

    If there was no sign and just the button and Dougal was tweeting and received a message saying ” Don’t press it” – or one saying “Press it and see what happens” – the result will be the same – Dougal being a halfwit will press the button and crash the plane.

    Yes it would be necessary to prove intent – but intent cannot be proved on something deemed indirect. That is why it such speech can and should be deemed direct action – to prevent idiots(and ordinary people – but mainly idiots) being taken advantage of and the harm that flows from it.

    People are programmed to follow both instructions and whim… and the two often combine. The authority need only exist in the mind of the agent/proxy. (in reality they often are not even be aware of it… they may assume that they are acting of their own free will – and of course they are … with a huge: “but that is not the whole story” tagged on.)

  • Paul Marks

    There is a legal idea (more talked of in the United States than in Britain now) of “fighting words”.

    I.E. if someone insults you or someone you care about – you have a defence of provocation for hitting them.

    So if (for example) this vile “twitter” man had gone up to a close releative or friend of this footballer and started saying these things, they might have had a defence for smacking him in the mouth.

    However, these were words on his “twitter feed”.

    And it was not a smack in the mouth from a close friend or relative – it was punishment from the state.

    Britain has long been a bit of a mess (since at least World War II in fact) – but now it is becomming something else.

    A rather EVIL country.

  • Laird

    So putting up a sign that says “Do NOT Press This Button” is tantamount to an order to press it? Do you have even a vague conception of how foolish that is?

    This is pointless.

  • Hmm

    Laird, Yes -Not foolish at all… Silly? Absolutely (that’s the point!) The Red Button nicely illustrates just one small data set of how peoples minds work. It illustrates how they work subject to perception and drive regardless of common sense. Moral and Legal frameworks must necessarily take this into account because of the ability of third parties to use this knowledge to manipulate other third party action.

    The whole Political Correctness machine works thru this. So how is it foolish? The “Terror in the Sky” is silly and fun – that is its purpose – it is comedy.

    What I should have stated at the start is:

    Words are a control mechanism (often subliminal) and that is why they require rules. To imagine that speech somehow exists as harmless wallpaper, hanging harmlessly around us waiting for us to consciously process is …. naive, wish-fulfilment or contrarian. We ignore the power of words/speech at our peril.

    P.S. The Harry Potter thing that Rob posted has some excellent chapters that excellently describe the dangers of words, pitfalls of thinking, and why rules are necessary.

  • Paul Marks

    I think I understand what Hmm is saying.

    Making certain words illegal (inflicting punishment for saying them) does have a “pressure cooker” effect.

    For example, in the French Revolution it was well known that calling out “long live the King” would get you executed.

    But people (just ordinary people watching) did call it out – even at death trials, and were indeed grabbed and executed.

    Some of the people who called out these words were NOT Royalists.

    It was the pressure cooker effect.

    “I must not say….., I must not say……, I MUST NOT SAY….. LONG LIVE THE KING”.

    In the United States (and many other parts of the West) people who are not racists (who are even married to people of different ethnic groups) sometimes crack in public and use forbidden racial words.

    Again it is the pressure cooker effect.

    “I must not say….., I must not say……., I MUST NOT SAY N……”

    This is not accident – the pressure cooker effect is intentional (the Frankfurt School of Marxism people discussed how forbidding certain words would impose mental strains upon people – people who would never otherwise use these words).

    In this way the totalitarians (such as the people who control so much of the culture in Britain) spread fear and division – as is their intention.

    They set people at each other’s throats – thus making their power grabbing less difficult.

    Of course there also those people who are so constantly attacked as racists (when they are not) they eventually come to the conculsion that people of other races (and people of their own race who are attacking them on, false, charges of racism) are their enemies – their “natural” enemies.

    In short in some cases (quite a lot actually – but NOT this particular case) the constant charges of racism takes nonracists and turns them into racists.

    Again this is intentional – again part of spreading fear, hatred and division.

    The stock-in-trade of the Frankfurt School of Marxism – known today as the PC movement, and the “diversity” movement.

    Certainly there are many “useful idiots” in the movement who do not know its origns and true obectives.

    But the leaders do – even today.

    After all the people who teach “Critical Theory” (and so on) in the universities are fully aware that it is Frankfurt School style Marxism – even though they are careful not to say so (apart from to their most “advanced” students).