Dom Post defends free speech
April 30th, 2007 at 8:47 am by David FarrarAn excellent editorial from the Dom Post on free speech, even for offensive views. Some extracts:
The answer is neither to stop groups such as Hammerskins and the peace advocates from expressing their views, nor, as others advocate, ignore them and hope that a complete lack of publicity stifles them.
There can be no rational defence for suppressing views simply because they do not accord with the orthodoxy of the day.
The solution is not to ignore those rantings, but to expose them to the full glare of publicity.
Some may argue that is what they want, that extremists of all stripes seek to provoke, and that to give them publicity is the equivalent of promoting their ideas. That is to display too little faith in the public’s ability to recognise arrant nonsense when they hear it.
Skinhead white supremicists are entitled to their beliefs. However, they should not expect to hold those beliefs unchallenged.
If they wish to celebrate Hitler’s birthday and to pursue his repellent philosophies they must expect to be exposed to the contempt they deserve. So too should those who confuse a sombre commemoration of past sacrifice with war-mongering.
Exactly.
Related posts:
- Dom Post on free speech
- Dom Post on extremism and free speech
- Dom Post on free speech
- Dom Post on free speech
May 1st, 2007 at 8:31 am
I agree 100% David. Every group in NZ has the right to say what they like, but by doing so invite everybody else to have an opinion on it.
Be as extreme as you like, but by doing so you will get the appropriate response from the public.
By saying that, groups like the Exclusive Brethren were unfairly targetted by Labour when they used their freedom of speech, and it’s bloody ironic that we find out they met with Labour anyway!
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:34 am
David,
A very good editorial. Coincidentally I see Jordan has picked up his ball and gone home over at Just Left refusing comments.
It’s pleasing no doubt for him he’s reached a pinnacle of enlightenment whereby everything he says is perfectly sane and incontestable. I’m not sure if he’ll see any relevance in the comment in this editorial – “The solution is not to ignore those rantings, but to expose them to the full glare of publicity.”
The likes of those commentators such as Jordan find it philosophically impossible to understand or accept views that differ from the narrow and always shifting party line. It’s a reflection on their simple lack of an argument that his and those aligned to this view choose to simply throw their toys out of the cot more often than fronting up and having a go.
Interestingly he says in his profile “…Above all else, it is somewhere I want to develop my political thinking and writing, in dialogue with other people of like (and different) points of view. Because of this, my views as reflected in my writing will inevitably change over time. I am not old enough to be set in my ways, and to have unmovable positions on the majority of issues. I would like to think I am developing my principles and addressing arguments in a way that implies some ability to think.”
I quite enjoyed reading his blog – he’s obviously not the sharpest tool in the shed but nevertheless a ‘passable’ counter balance to the likes of DPF.
Unfortunately there won’t be a lot of visitors in the future.
What a fuckin tool.
Kisses,
Two Rows Back
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:41 am
“…merely to underline that there is a tiny minority in New Zealand who are both incredibly ignorant of history, and determined to display that ignorance.
No one with the slightest acquaintance with 20th century history could regard Hitler and the Nazis with anything other than total abhorrence.”
I expect the DomPost editor is part of that tiny minority.
“…and to pursue his repellent philosophies they must expect to be exposed to the contempt they deserve…”
Perhaps the editor of the DomPost should learn something about Hitler’s “philosophies” before implying that he was merely “a german who killed jews”.
Hitler didn’t think much of socialists and communists either. Are the American’s also “repellant” for holding such views? Perhaps the editor is suffering from anti-americanism too – “the orthodoxy of the day?”
Perhaps the much learned DomPost editor would like to tell us about the communist and socialist antics during WW1 at the Russian front and the unrestricted killings of anyone who disagreed with their philosophies and the attack on and forced breakdown of communities and traditions? I think the editor actually knows very little about 20th century history, revolution and civil war.
Perhaps the Editor supports Helen’s regime and is getting a little uncomfortable? How many socialists hate rightwingers? Hmmm?
“…Skinhead white supremacists are entitled to their beliefs. However, they should not expect to hold those beliefs unchallenged…”
I get the feeling that an average public challenge to such skinheads would be to cry holocaust and scream Nazi. Highbrow stuff indeed. On the other hand, I also doubt that many skinheads have read and understood Mein Kampf or studied the life and times of Adolph Hitler. In both factions there will be a vast pool of generalisation, ignorance and hysteria.
You may find that shaving your head and wearing jackboots, in NZ, actually has nothing to do with following Hitler’s philosophies at all.
“The denial of the Holocaust coupled with the reverence for the man behind it provokes a sense of absolute disgust in all those who are aware of how close civilisation in Europe came to disintegrating under the jackboots of the Nazis.”
Examining Hitler’s life, does not suggest reverence for the subject, or a denial of the holocaust. It is difficult to say whether civilisation would have crumbled under the Nazi regime. Their plans, though grandiose, included a strictly hierarchical civilisation. Democracy wouldn’t have thrived though. The world has seen worse. I suspect the editor just didn’t like the idea, not that it would be the end of civilisation.
The life of Hitler was as complex as any other historical figure. He did after all rescue and rebuild a Nation from complete defeat and ruin. Were his methods repulsive? Were the countries of Europe so squeaky clean and PC at that time themselves?
There are things to be learned from Hitler’s life and many of his ideas on politics and propaganda have withstood the test of time, because they are true. Examples of his way of thinking can be found in most current governments the world over.
“That is to display too little faith in the public’s ability to recognise arrant nonsense when they hear it.”
The public read and parrot arrant nonsense everyday from MSM just like the DomPost.
“…or that any of those there to acknowledge New Zealand’s dead would advocate it as a foreign policy tool.”
Unless Clausewitz was wrong, which he wasn’t, mobilising an army is a foriegn policy tool. The editor display’s her ignorance of military history, strategy and politics here. Perhaps she has discovered a new strategic military theory that has slipped past the generals and politicians throughout history? I doubt it somehow. It sounds more like whimpering unrealistic idealism – “the orthodoxy of the day”.
“No one who thinks in more than slogans could believe that Anzac Day is a glorification of war…”
Wrong again. People who think that way are trying hard to justify their own thoughts to themselves under the wieght of a failed pacifist ideology, fearing that they will be labelled unPC. Why lie to yourself? War may be “hell”, but there is also glory. The glory of military might, the glory of the Hero, the propaganda of being right and “that god is with you”, the glory of victory after a hard struggle. ANZAC day has this in it’s background. Humans like to kill for a cause, even if they hate to die, even if they lose their appetite for it after a few months or years or in defeat. ANZAC day is about rememberance, but it cannot be separated from glory. Why must the PC ask us all to lie to and about ourselves? Psychologists know what happens after you start doing that.
“There can be no rational defence for suppressing views simply because they do not accord with the orthodoxy of the day.”
yet we are not allowed to examine Hitler’s life freely, examine what ANZAC day is about, or contradict your editorial, otherwise we are “ignorant”?
There is a rational defence for suppressing views. It usually happens in times of war.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:44 am
“Skinhead white supremicists are entitled to their beliefs. However, they should not expect to hold those beliefs unchallenged.”
I think the Dom post forgot to add the huge compo payments these skinhead homicidal maniac’s get from the HRRT so they buy up large in prison !
Know of one of a scumbag killer that was paid $60k !!
Lest we forget !! – like hell we will !!
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:12 am
To paraphrase:
I disagree with what you are saying, but will defend with my life your right to say it.
Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should do it.
Somewhere in between lies the reality. When does free speech turn into hate speech?
When is free speech not really free, i.e it comes at a cost. I am thinking of anyone who may offend Islam here. We have already seen numerous examples of MSM making decision’s not to exercise their freedom on this issue, as they are afraid of the consequences. Offending the Jewish faith, though fairly common, is also dangerous ground. In some free, western countries denying the holocaust will land you in jail. In China, the only news you get is what is decided for you. To do otherwsie can result in prison or death.
In our everday lives in NZ, people in the media make choices about what we they want us to read and therefore hope to shape our opinions. That is the power of the media, in all it’s forms.
Individuals also have the right to choose what they read and listen to. Our own personal filters determine what we believe, so we have the ablity to be our own censors.
Free speech is a pipe dream in this modern world. I think common sense dictates that we have all, at sometime, censored oursleves or bit our tongue lest we offend someone we don’t wish to offend, for whatever reason. Add to that a civic responsibility for the media to represent the percieved moral fibre of the community it serves, then it becomes clear that free speech in it’s truest form ,is lost.
Publish and be damned? Only the bravest of the brave would do so. Not a description I would label our MSM with.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:24 am
and what is with dear Jordan?
It must have been a fasinating decision making progress:
hhm, now if I post something I believe in and most people comment and disagree, does that make me wrong? I’m never wrong.
I know, I’ll make my comments, everyone can read them but I won’t let anyone tell me their view. That way, if they disagree, I’ll never know. If I don’t know anyone is disagreeing, then I’ll always be right. Got it.
Basically, I really just want to get the party message out there. We aren’t interested in what the schmucks think. No, I think it best if I just concentrate on getting the propoganda out there. yes, that will be best.
OMG, ignorance is bliss, why didn’t I think of this earlier.
1 week later: hhmm, my hits are way down, almost non existant. Must be a problem with my host server…..
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:56 am
I agree with the Dom Post editorial, but then they would say that, particularly the bit about not ignoring activists. It would be nice if radical protestors received the same level of coverage (i.e. about none) as that of more mainstream views, but that isn’t what sells.
I have absolutely no objection to any of this – how could anyone who believes in freedom and free speech – but I wonder if the author of that piece would feel the same way if she/he was not writing for a major daily.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:57 am
Free speech is a pipe dream in this modern world. I think common sense dictates that we have all, at sometime, censored oursleves or bit our tongue lest we offend someone we don’t wish to offend, for whatever reason. Add to that a civic responsibility for the media to represent the percieved moral fibre of the community it serves, then it becomes clear that free speech in it’s truest form ,is lost.
You describe (accurately IMHO) that people choose to speak based on their own preferences and not governed by law. And then conclude that people are clearly not able to speak freely, which is an absurd conclusion. The truest form of free speech is the allowance of people to speak freely that is all, it is not some kind of hypothetical unfettered subjective truth telling.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:58 am
This whole issue was brought to a head because some individuals were arrested for disrupting the dawn service.
They have since claimed that these arrests were a violation of their right to free speech.
There is an opinion held by some in the far left and far right that they should be allowed to say anything they like under the guise of free speech and to a certain extent they are correct. Where the line is crossed is when Free Speech impedes the rights of others, in this case the rights of veterans to remeber mates in solemn dignity and the rights of other New Zealanders to remember the sacrifices made and express the hope that such sacrifice will not be needed in the future.
If you are anti war, that is your right and you are to be applauded for your views. If you behave in a contemptuous manner in expressing that view, you can expext to be treated with contempt in return.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pm
slightlyrightly … well said
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Well said slightlyrighty My observations have been that the extreme elements on every side can dish it out but they cant take it. They have a one eyed view of the world so what they say and do is OK but not for anyone else who doesnt hold their view. Take the current Socialist government. Hypocritics to a fault. If they do it OK But no one else can. And thats why I and others depise them and will always do so.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Add to that a civic responsibility for the media to represent the percieved moral fibre of the community it serves, then it becomes clear that free speech in it’s truest form ,is lost.
Especially so when it comes to religious beliefs, which tend to be almost hysterically guarded. Atheists certainly would not enjoy the same protection of “freedom of speech” were they to speak their minds.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pm
So, David,
If you believe in free speech, albeit offensive, why did you ban dad4justice from your blog?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
“The likes of those commentators such as Jordan find it philosophically impossible to understand or accept views that differ from the narrow and always shifting party line”
Would you be any relation to the commentator ” Second From The Right Two Rows Back” who told me last week that if I did not shut up I better “get mortgage insurance”?
There are many ways to stifle free speech, all of them should be fought against.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Hi Sonic,
Nice to hear from you. I was beginning to think your mandated 7.25 hour work day was taking a wee bit too much time out of your life for blogging.
Anyway, I think you’ll find that I did not request you “shut up”. You have taken your rather boring leaning for exaggeration to make your point once again.
Nevertheless as your designated financial planner I do seriously suggest that mortgage insurance is a worthy addition to your risk portfolio (just in case). Really up to you.
Anyway, must dash – love your work!
Kisses,
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Thanks for the clarification Mr Financial Advisor, if I ever get a mortgage I’ll certainly keep your wise advice in mind.
Hugs
S
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
“And then conclude that people are clearly not able to speak freely, which is an absurd conclusion. The truest form of free speech is the allowance of people to speak freely that is all, it is not some kind of hypothetical unfettered subjective truth telling.”
u-c ; damn and I thought I had it nailed. oh well.
Vote:Actually, the last sentence , which you labelled an absurd conclusion, deals with censorship of ourselves by ourselves, rather than an imposed censorship. In other words, we sometimes care about people and won’t say hateful things just for the hell of it. Sorry it wasn’t clearer.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
Slightly right is slightly right… I agree with the concept of free speech, but don’t agree that any person or group of persons should have a right to deliberately be offensive to any other group, or to desecrate the National Flag..Everyone should have the right to stand on a soapbox in a Public Park and orate their view providing they respect the rights of others.. I also think some National papers tend to censor some points of view while promoting others that favour those of their own political persuasion. So Dominion set the example instead of waffling about some airy fairy ideal.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I think context is all important (like the famous shouting fire in a theatre)
While I probably agree with many of the things the protestors on Anzac day were protesting about, where and how they carried out their protest was stupid and counterproductive. There should be no problem in commemorating the victims of war by people who are for peace.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Craig,
That isn’t censorship that is just being a considerate person. Surely it would be a less free system that made you speak in a way that is against your considerate nature.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
I wonder if “Dad4Justice” is circumventing his time-out by posting under “Det – C.I.U”. Am I the only one noticing the distinct similarities in writing style – on this and other threads?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:50 pm
“So, David,
If you believe in free speech, albeit offensive, why did you ban dad4justice from your blog?”
D4J’s freedom ends where someone elses private property begins. This is DPF’s private property, his rules.
Just because you have freedom of speech doesn’t mean you impose an obligation for someone else to publish it.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Who is dad4justice ? Not me mate, as I am just a slapper on steroid’s .
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:22 pm
anaha-closp
“Surely it would be a less free system that made you speak in a way that is against your considerate nature.”
Well yes and no, it would be less free system that made you speak – at all.
Graig was entirely valid in his point. You’re twisting the concept of consideration for others into a knot with free speech. Free speech is a cornerstone of freedom, consideration is exercised by people who show sensitivity for others. These are not good things to confuse, when we do – we do silly things like burn flags at an ANZAC day service.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:35 pm
D4J is not banned as much as on a timeout. I was sick of every thread degenerating into a battle involving him. It was driving people away. When the noise gets that loud I’ll take action.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
The crux of the problem is the existence of “public property” meaning State controlled areas we are all forced to fund leading to conflict between “owners” who both have a case to use that land.
Had this occurred on private property there would be no issue as the property owner’s desires would be final as to who could be there and who couldn’t.
Reduce the size of the State and return the land back to the people via sales and there is no more conflict like this.
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Just out of interest, Jordan hasn’t closed all his threads down for comments.
See ya down here for a party !
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Burt
Don’t worry – there’s a party 24/7 at Jordan’s place – it’s just that well-meaning people like you aren’t invited. And I see Jordan had a hissy fit on his daylight saving thread, instead of acknowledging the (I thought) fair feedback on his new comments policy. Yes, as Jordan says, people will still stop by for their daily fix of sponsored Labour Party messages. But they probably won’t stay long if (taxpayer-funded) refreshments aren’t served.
Vote:May 26th, 2007 at 10:45 am
You have a beautiful site. looks good under music artillery company honourable
Vote: