Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter

Opinion

To the Editor:

Poetry & Art

Classified Ads

Back Issues

Blogs

Stuck between a rock and a hard place

Adam LaMascus
The Commuter

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

It seems America isn’t the only one having a hard time handling extremism in the media.

According to the Associated Press, Nick Griffin, leader of the fascist, white-supremacist, militant British National Party, has been invited to participate in a debate on a popular British Broadcasting Corporation news show. The British government and numerous anti-racist groups have said that having Griffin on the show “legitimizes fascist” as well as racist views. Numerous groups have already vowed to protest at the taping of the show this Thursday at the BBC headquarters.

A BBC spokesman declared that it isn’t within their rights to dictate who can and cannot have a say.

The BNP is being invited to the show because it won 6 percent of the popular vote in recent elections, and won a string of other small victories. According to the Associated Press, many experts believe that the only reason the BNP is currently doing so well is due to another report leaked earlier this year. This report showed that numerous members of all the mainstream political parties had spent countless British tax dollars on pornography, installation of chandeliers, and cleaning the moats on their private estates. The experts predict it is mainly a disenchantment of those politicians, more than actual support of the BNP’s policies.

The question is such: While everybody deserves to speak their opinion, at which point should they lose that right?

The American Civil Liberties Union would argue never, seeing as they campaigned for a Neo-Nazi group’s “right” to have a parade in a Jewish neighborhood and the Westboro Baptist Church’s “right” to stand outside of soldiers’ funerals holding signs reading “God Hates Fags” and “Thank God for 9/11”.

I would personally say that when your message is preaching death and hatred, your message should be censored. However, it isn’t that clear-cut, and it is easy to misinterpret criticism for hatred. Giving a small group of people the power to decide what you can and cannot say is not a good idea. The Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, House Un-American Activities Commission, and numerous other historical examples show that strict control of words is a breeding ground for corruption and injustice.

As painful as it may be, perhaps it is best to give people unmitigated freedom with what they say (unless they specifically say to “go out and kill people”). Putting a condition on free speech is just laying the groundwork for tyranny.

Comment

Commenting is closed for this article.