Free Speech Siege
Steve Bannon, I disagree with almost everything you say, but I will always defend your right to say it. This should be one's attitude if they claim to support free speech.
![SCAF_took_one_sniff_of_freedom_of_speech_and_HATED_it.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmbJpLzTT5Ua12UQMwsafGV1pkH6PLMxZp1QYgtQN3iekX/SCAF_took_one_sniff_of_freedom_of_speech_and_HATED_it.jpg)
source: Wikimedia Commons
Free speech isn't worth anything if you do not grant that right to the ones you disagree with. This shouldn't shock or surprise anyone and I would like to believe that this goes without saying. Yet, time and time again, when some public figure with controversial, or even detestable ideas and opinions is invited on a public platform to speak, the protest against that person's ideas ends up as an attempt to prevent him or her to speak. Most recently this happened at the Oxford Union where right-wing nationalist populist Steve Bannon was invited to a public debate with the students of that university.
Right after Bannon's invitation to speak, a protest was organized, which is a good thing; the right to protest is also a crucial part of free speech. But on the day of the public debate, the protesters outside formed a human wall, deliberately blocking entrance to the building for the speaker and the audience. And that's far from okay, that's showing that you do not understand what free speech is about. You should have known that you grant Bannon a victory, right there; the publicity your action generates is priceless. And you failed; I just now listened to Bannon's speech and the questions and his answers, you blocked nothing.
"Those who do not support free speech for those they despise do not support free speech at all."
Noam Chomsky
I don't agree with Bannon or Trump because I judge them both on their actions, not their words. Bannon's words were inspiring for a good part; his analysis on the rise of Trump was accurate as he described his electoral victory as the result of decades of politics in favor of the money elite. This spawned the angry workers in the middle class, who voted for Trump as a protest vote. Same thing with the rise of right wing nationalist political parties in Europe, and Brexit; all a direct result of decades of political and economical neglect of the middle working class.
Like Trump, Bannon has the right words to lure you in, but I was delighted to hear the students' questions, that showed they were looking right through the rhetoric, and criticizing the actions of the people, Trump's administration, he supports; Bannon had a series of non-answers stressing the fight against the money-elite... Which would be hilarious if not so many people actually fell for the righteous rhetoric. Bannon is a good speaker and plays his role well for the fringe on the right. But the students that tried to prevent the debate altogether have expanded his platform considerably, and that's not helping. It's giving rise to articles and videos like Why Leftists HATE Free Speech. It's like you're advocating freedom from speech you don't like, as opposed to freedom of speech.
![Trump_protest.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQme8h2rKxFTUwkthQq8Yqck92ZeTYPzP8GsYDBZSgbUeaH/Trump_protest.jpg)
source: Wikipedia
The attempted siege on Bannon's free speech is made complete by the reactions on so called "liberal" media. "By inviting Steve Bannon to speak, the Oxford Union has handed him a victory," is the headline above a CNN article about the event. Like many of the protesters, CNN turns the three way table around 33 degrees and blames Oxford university for giving Bannon a public platform, failing, or unwilling, to see that the attempts to discredit or silence him are the real victory. Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Milo Yiannopoulos ride this same wave; debate them, listen to them, try to learn the secret of their popular success and defend their right to make public their opinions and ideologies however ugly they may be.
The CNN article concludes:
I asked the former Oxford Union President whether there was anyone whose invitation they would deem a "move too far" for the Union. After a pause, they replied: "Off the top of my head, I think anyone who would use it to break the law -- slander, hate speech etc. And anyone whose physical presence would endanger the students.
"I would also say that if someone very very controversial is invited, it should be the case that they have to submit to lots of questions and challenges from the audience. If not, that obviates the point."
To my mind, that point is superseded by another. If flexing the intellectual muscles of a group of students comes at the cost of amplifying a man whose political program thus far has endangered the lives of thousands -- even millions -- of people across the world, and who is not done yet, it is not worth it.
source: CNN
The former Oxford Union President has all the right things to say about how free speech works. The very last paragraph, containing the reporter's conclusion, is wrong in my opinion. You can disagree with their political program and their political actions, but what use is there to disagreeing if the one you disagree with is only allowed to whisper secretly? What kind of democracy do you envision where the electorate needs to be protected from opposing views? Do you not trust me to decide for myself if Bannon is a racist, or fascist or whatever, after listening to him? Here's the entire speech with Q&A, you decide for yourself:
Steve Bannon | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!
![wave-13 divider odrau steem](https://steemitimages.com/DQmU6tFLSzDEkxq3xneXTH74gx4vhqbcyurn9NbqxFj8jY5/wave-13.png)
Recent articles you might be interested in:
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!
![wave-13 divider odrau steem](https://steemitimages.com/DQmU6tFLSzDEkxq3xneXTH74gx4vhqbcyurn9NbqxFj8jY5/wave-13.png)
Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:
Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO
![wave-13 divider odrau steem](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://steemitimages.com/DQmU6tFLSzDEkxq3xneXTH74gx4vhqbcyurn9NbqxFj8jY5/wave-13.png)
@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!
![Helpie_01.png](https://steemitimages.com/640x0/https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmVNwKHPnjtaTaunEjoCr1fmyJzgwrrFNKCMYLCLcLWA4e/Helpie_01.png)
Free speech is a double edged sword, and a basic human right.
I continuously juggle my stance between the ideals in my mind in which I aspire to believe that everyone must be allowed to say their piece if I was to be allowed my piece, and the reality of the world in which 'free speech' is mostly afforded to those with power. Those without power, the minorities who are marginalized and disenfranchised, are not afforded a real sense of 'free speech'. They are ignored, muted, misinterpreted, gentrified, parodied, and robbed off their voices.
Great article, as always, @zyx066. I agree entirely for I, too, aspire for free speech to be a universal truth, in an ideal world.
Yes, I know; it's not always easy to bring this into practice, especially in a world where the distribution of freedoms is as skewed as it is in ours... But isn't that almost always how it goes? Doing the right thing is almost never the easy thing ;-)
Great comment, as always, @veryspider, thank you! 💜
Does free speech include the freedom of expression?
Basically, yes. In the Human Rights Declaration it says so literally as it has "freedom of expression" in it:
I think I agree With that, with freedom of expression. Steven Crowder said that the U.S. Constitution does not protect the freedom of expression, just free speech. I think that is what he was saying in his Change My Mind video on how hate speech is not real. I think I disagree with what he was saying.
Louder With Crowder
http://LouderWithCrowder.com
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 250+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our brand new reddit! and start sharing your Steemit posts directly to The_IW, via the share button on your Steemit post!!!
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Leadership/Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call
Ways you can help the @informationwar
Congratulations @zyx066! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click here to view your Board of Honor
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
This post was shared in the Curation Collective Discord community for curators, and upvoted and resteemed by the @c-squared community account after manual review.
@c-squared runs a community witness. Please consider using one of your witness votes on us here
Hi @zyx066!
Your post was upvoted by @steem-ua, new Steem dApp, using UserAuthority for algorithmic post curation!
Your UA account score is currently 3.538 which ranks you at #6088 across all Steem accounts.
Your rank has improved 15 places in the last three days (old rank 6103).
In our last Algorithmic Curation Round, consisting of 213 contributions, your post is ranked at #22.
Evaluation of your UA score:
Feel free to join our @steem-ua Discord server