29 September 2012

An aside


China Miéville, writing this past March on another incident and in another context, yet summing up a point that that should've been raised in recent weeks, but largely (rather appallingly) wasn't:

"Indeed, an astoundingly small proportion of arguments 'for free speech' and 'against censorship' or 'banning' are, in fact, about free speech, censorship or banning. It is depressing to have to point out, yet again, that there is a distinction between having the legal right to say something & having the moral right not to be held accountable for what you say. Being asked to apologise for saying something unconscionable is not the same as being stripped of the legal right to say it. It’s really not very f-cking complicated. Cry 'free speech' in such contexts, you are demanding the right to speak any bilge you wish without apology or fear of comeback. You are demanding not legal rights but an end to debate about and criticism of what you say. When did bigotry get so needy? This assertive & idiotic failure to understand that juridical permissibility backed up by the state is not the horizon of politics or morality is absurdly resilient."

Original post here.

No comments:

  © Blogger template 'Solitude' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP