Unintended consequences
Have you heard of Steven Anderson?
I know I hadn’t until the other day.
Our Glorious Minister for Justice has apparently banned Mr Anderson from entering the country, using a law for the first time since it was introduced twenty years ago.
So what has Anderson done to be accorded such an historic privilege? Well, apparently nothing. It’s not what he has done but what he may say that worries our Minister. Forget freedom of speech – we are well into the realm of freedom of thought.
It seems that Anderson has a reputation for anti-LGBTQWERTY rhetoric? So fucking what? He hates Gays. So do a lot of people but that is entirely beside the point. Personally, from reading about him I have no time for him or his prehistoric beliefs. He’s a bit of a cunt but that is all beside the point. What is to the point is that having heard about him and the banning order I took a bit of an interest, which is something I would hardly have done if I hadn’t heard about him. Thank you Minister for the publicity.
The point is that if he came he probably would have had an audience of a couple of hundred people. Now that he has hit the headlines he has an audience of thousands, or any multiple thereof. And any one of those new readers are free to look up Anderson on YouTube and listen to his bilge.
The Mister has obviously not heard of the Interweb? Or maybe he has and maybe he just wanted to give Anderson some free publicity?
Nice one, Minister.
Ms. Streisand and her Effect.
When will they ever learn?
A text book example!
"threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour” are contrary to public policy and prohibited under Irish law."
This bit of the article caught my attention. Is there no freedom of speech? If I find something offensive then it is against the law? Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom for my ideas and thoughts and not yours! This is some fucked up laws.
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech for one and all. If you don't like what you read, then read something else. If you don't like what a speaker has to say don't go listen to him speak or better yet get your own soapbox and give your own speech. It is NOT the gubmints place to say what speech is acceptable!
It's just like the blasphemy laws – impossible to quantify precisely. It is wide open to interpretation as it is impossible to define. As you say – anyone can be insulted or offended by just about anything.
Freedom of speech is gradually being eroded mainly by the snowflake generation. The existing laws on libel, slander or incitement to violence are more than sufficient. Even then, the "incitement to violence" is wide open to interpretation.
In the UK 30+ years ago, we had the nonsense of certain IRA leaders having their voices banned from any broadcasts – in response, the broadcasters merely used Irish-sounding voice-over actors to lip-synch whatever Adams/McGuinness etc. were saying. That ridiculous farce merely served to emphasise their words, rather than allowing the listeners to evaluate what they were saying.
We have now moved even beyond that, to the point where we are prevented from hearing even the words that some designated people may want to say, for fear that it may align with what we think. Thus we are being conditioned to cleanse our own thoughts of anything which doesn't fit the current zeitgeist. Orwell was right, if only a few decades earlier than the actuality. Thank heaven for the Internet, where freedom of thought and speech still exist . . . . . for now. Protect it with vigour because they establishment wants to take that away from us too.
The problem with any limits to free speech is that those limits will inevitably change. That's already very evident in the PC movement where more and more subjects are becoming taboo.
What is now also evident is that free thought is under attack. I doubt that Anderson ever actually killed someone [I'm open to correction] so it's his belief that's under attack.
Thou shalt not think dark thoughts…..