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]
|
If you join the Free Speech Union, it will offer to spend your money on defending vile people like Heather Herbert
“Speaking ill of the dead is not an offence, however offensive. If Heather Herbert joins the @SpeechUnion, we will do our best to help.”
I consider my membership dues well spent.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
As a member of the FSU I don’t have a problem with that. As an Anerdonian, I do have a problem with the University not having fired this person for having brought the university into disrepute.
Quite right too.
Yes – scumbags have the right to Freedom of Speech.
Heather Herbert is a scumbag – and Heather Herbert has the right to Freedom of Speech.
The only concern I’d have is that I imagine she doesn’t want other people to have freedom of speech. Although the Free Speech Union should support her right to spout her vile nonsense I think to be a member you really need to buy into both sides, namely that you can say whatever you like but you must allow me to say whatever I want too.
So the FSU can surely advocate her right to say her vile nonsense, but I’m not sure she is a good candidate for membership, since I doubt she supports the latter part of this requirement.
And, FWIW, this is a perfect example of one of the great benefits of free speech. She says these vile things, and now we all know what sort of person she really is.
I second Quentin’s comment.
Wot Fraser said.
Of course the FSU is correct to stand up for vile person, just as the ACLU was correct to back the Illinois Nazis in Skokie (“I hate Illinois Nazis”) and the police were right to protect the blackshirts in the Cable St. riots.
That said, speech without limits doesn’t mean speech without consequences. Those who find her comments vile and loathsome are also free not only to call her out for them but also to drum her out of polite society.
That last bit, the societal pressure, is what too often goes missing from discussions about free speech. Those discussions get framed in terms of a false dichotomy – either make saying hurtful things illegal or permit a calamitous free-for-all. But, at the risk of coming over all Blairite, there is a third way: social pressure. Create a society where being vile is simply not acceptable and that is willing to use that social pressure to expel those who transgress.
@Philip Scott Thomas
social pressure. Create a society where being vile is simply not acceptable and that is willing to use that social pressure to expel those who transgress.
See I’m not sure I agree. This is premised on the idea that we need to find a mechanism to stop people saying vile things, but I don’t agree with that at all. Why can’t people say vile things? Now of course I might choose not to socialize or employ a person like that but I do so not to convince them to do something different but simply because I don’t want to be around them. It isn’t some social pressure to get them to change, or at least change what they say, it is just that I don’t want to be with such a person. It is not a strategy to change society, it is just a strategy to make my life a bit more pleasant. As an example, I don’t really hang out with people who swear A LOT. Not because I think we should put pressure on them to clean up, but just because I find it ugly and unpleasant.
I’d rather vile people said vile things so that we know their vileness and can avoid them. I don’t especially want them going underground. But I say that not as a strategy but just as a passing thought.
And I also worry that this idea is premised on the idea that words are violence, and consequently we should try to stop them, if not by law then via social pressure. I don’t agree. Let people say what they will, and if you don’t like it, don’t listen to them. Other people’s words only hurt of offend you insofar as you chose to listen or chose to give them any validity. Free speech is the right to speak, not the right to be heard or listened to.
That is like saying:
If your home was burned down in a fire, we will offer you retroactive fire insurance.
I support the FSU. Money well spent.