Freedom of Speech - only for left wingers? (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

I see Nigel Farage has had his contract with LBC radio terminated with immediate effect. He is a vocal critic of Black Lives Matter.

Is this a case of preserving Freedom of Speech, but only if you are left wing? I thought the left wing was against discrimination of any kind. But the muzzling of those who's views differ, isn't this a form of tyranny?

 

[Minty]

Nigel Farage is an odious waste of oxygen, who's only agenda is to self promote.
He'll pretty much say anything keep in the public eye.
He's also very good at it, unfortunately.

Just in case there is any doubt - I don't like him. He's dangerous.

 

[Jon]

I would say his main agenda was to give what the majority of the public wanted, Brexit.

But my real question is not about Nigel Farage himself. It is if you think silencing those you disagree with is a form of tyranny, and if we should only allow the left to freely express their views.

 

[Minty]

Well, his main agenda was Brexit, but nowadays he gets wheeled out for anything.
I have no issue with his freedom to express a view, what boils my blood is that his view is given a platform above and beyond his station.
He was rolled out on some major media platform within days of the Covid breakout, and brought nothing to the conversation at all.

He has never been a UK MP, only ever an MEP, where he did precisely nothing for his £200K+ a year salary, then complained when things didn't go his way, even on committees he was supposed to be on or even chairing.

I'm guessing he has said something very controversial to warrant being instantly dismissed.

 

[Jon]

So you don't think he should be due his Knighthood?

He likened Black Lives Matter to the Taliban, saying they have a Marxist agenda.

what boils my blood is that his view is given a platform above and beyond his station.

Who decides what his station should be? The left?

 

[Steve R.]

It is if you think silencing those you disagree with is a form of tyranny, and if we should only allow the left to freely express their views. (emphasis added)

It appears that even within the political left there is virtually no allowance for viewpoints that do not conform to the "official" orthodoxy. Anyone freely expressing views not in conformance with the "official" orthodoxy is branded a vile apostate to be immediately crucified by the mob without mercy.

"Harry Potter” actors are lining up to denounce J.K. Rowling’s attacks on transgender people.

The "official" orthodoxy is quite fickle and subject to immediate revision. Eventually, the purveyors of the "official" orthodoxy tend to become the casualties of their very own actions as Maximilien de Robespierre found out.

 

[Micron]

Never heard of the guy, but on reading the op, is it really as it is being presented or is it that an organization who is paying his salary (or contract) just exercising their right to terminate a relationship?

 

[Jon]

They were very against his BLM stance. They are left wing and yes, they do pay his salary. They have every right to. They muzzled him. Now you only get the "correct" view, from their perspective. Farage was silenced because they disagreed with his right wing view. You can say that has nothing to do with freedom of speech if you like. But it was a case of the left censoring the right.

In the US, I think about 90% of the media is a mouth piece for the left. They have every right to push forward the views they want. They own the media organisations. Same with the universities. I presume they have the legal right to no-platform those who do not conform to the left wing views these institutions favour. But it does curtail freedom of speech. That is discrimination.

And in many cases, there are violent mobs threatening mayhem and violence if right wing speakers like Ben Shapiro go to do a talk. This is oppression, tyranny. This is curtailing of freedom of speech. What would the Democrats say if the right prevented the left from doing speeches at universities?

 

[Micron]

Well, we disagree it seems. He is free to expose his views anywhere that gives him the platform to do so - his own website, Facebook, Twitter, etc. If there is a media outlet that supports his views, he can go there if they want to support them. IMO you're confusing suppression of free speech with the right to disassociate yourself from those whose views are not yours, or worse, are too radical for you.

 

[Jon]

I am not sure why you think I am confused. I have stated that they have the right to do as they wish. On that we agree. But read the definition of what free speech actually is:

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction.

They terminated his contract, which amounts to censorship.

Here is the definition of censorship:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.

They were a private institution that suppressed his public communication because they considered his material objectionable. So this is a clear case of censorship.

Consequently, Nigel Farage did not have the freedom to articulate his opinion without fear of censorship. Therefore, he did not have freedom of speech.

Parse out the meanings from those definitions and you will realise I am 100% correct.

 

[Micron]

If you are in jail and send a letter, and the warden strikes out portions of your letter, that is an example of censorship. Not paying someone to say things I don't like is my right and it's not censorship because you are free to go wherever you like and say those things. They are not suppressing his ability to say whatever he wants - they are simply not supporting his him by choosing not to be the provider of his soap box. There is a difference.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The "official" orthodoxy is quite fickle and subject to immediate revision.

Apparently no one reads 1984 anymore. The liberals believe only in theirspeak. Yourspeak needs to be shut down at all costs. The hypocrisy of the left is tearing the world apart, not just the US. Just look at Seattle to see the tyranny we are facing. They haven't gotten out the guillotines yet but they are shaking down local businesses and residents just like the "police" in third world countries do. Our police, up to now, have at least remained honest except for a corrupt few. Antifa is showing its colors right from the start.

 

[Jon]

@Micron Let me understand your position. Are you saying that a newspaper cannot censor? Are you saying that if someone can express their views in another medium, then it cannot be classed as censorship?

They are not suppressing his ability to say whatever he wants - they are simply not supporting his him by choosing not to be the provider of his soap box. There is a difference.

Do you accept that they are suppressing his ability to say whatever he wants via their medium?

If you are in jail and send a letter, and the warden strikes out portions of your letter, that is an example of censorship.

Is the warden just excising his right to not support the transmission of the inmates message? The inmate can do his phone calls and visits and get his message out that way.

You seem to have ignored the definition of censorship that I pasted in my previous post.

Not deciding to hire someone is the radio channels choice. But getting rid of them because of their views is censorship. Explain what is inaccurate about this statement:

They were a private institution that suppressed his public communication because they considered his material objectionable.

It is a direct parsing of the definition of censorship. Here is what you seem to be saying censorship means:

They were a private institution that did not suppress his public communication, they just terminated his contract instead.

Or...

They were a private institution that suppressed his public communication but because he can express his views elsewhere, it does not count as censorship.

Are either of my above quotes representative of what you are saying censorship means?

I think you have dug a rather big hole for yourself here.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Companies are allowed to fire people for any reason I don't consider Nigel's firing to be censorship. WHY was he fired? Did the company decide he didn't draw a big enough audience or did 2 snowflakes complain so the company caved to "overwhelming" "concern"?

If I don't want to hear what someone has to say, I don't have to listen. Apparently the snowflakes of the left can't change the channel or just not go to the lecture.

Canada and I think the UK have passed laws prohibiting "hate" speech. Who decides what speech is hateful? Do you have a committee?

 

[Micron]

Do you accept that they are suppressing his ability to say whatever he wants via their medium?

Yes

Is the warden just excising his right to not support the transmission of the inmates message?

Therein lies the censorship - because the inmate has no recourse.
Your right to free speech does not trump my right to not be compelled to provide you with the soapbox. If you think by exercising my right that I'm censoring you even when you have the ability and right to say it elsewhere then we disagree on how to apply your definition.

 

[Jon]

Your right to free speech does not trump my right to not be compelled to provide you with the soapbox.

I think you are confusing censorship and the right to censor. It is not about my free speech trumping your right to fire. You are allowed to censor if you are the owner of the media outlet. Yet you don't think it is censorship. But it fits the definition perfectly. I asked many questions in my post, but you didn't want to answer most of them. I'm wondering why?

How does the inmate have you recourse?

 

[Jon]

@Pat Hartman

Companies are allowed to fire people for any reason I don't consider Nigel's firing to be censorship.

Yes, I am not disputing that they are allowed to fire. But firing and censorship are not mutually exclusive. How is it not censoring through firing?

I pasted the definition of censorship a few posts above. Maybe if you think it is not censorship, please tell me what is wrong with this parsed out definition?

They were a private institution that suppressed his public communication because they considered his material objectionable.

 

[Micron]

I'm wondering why?

No particular reason other than it's becoming too much for me. I should be getting off this couch and doing something around the house as I have a long list of projects to tackle.

Perhaps the crux of the difference isn't your definition so much as how you interpret "suppression" as the word is used in that definition. I still maintain that not providing you with an outlet isn't suppression; it is lack of support.

 

[Pat Hartman]

How is forcing a company to employ someone they do not want to employ right? If they fired him because of outside pressure, then they are feckless pieces of s*** just like the Republicans who stay out of the fray because they're afraid of being called names.

 

[Jon]

@Micron I get the too much time thing. Same here.

Definition of suppress from Google:

forcibly put an end to

Seems pretty conclusive to me. They terminated his contract. They forcibly put an end to his ability to use their public communication to express his views.