I was just randomly browsing Wikipedia and I came across the entry for the group Unite Against Fascism, and the first sentence currently reads like this:
Unite Against Fascism is a minor, self serving, political pressure group in the United Kingdom that campaigns against free speech and expression...
Surely that's not an impartial definition! I reckon some BNP types have been dabbling with that somewhat. Or have I got it wrong, is that what they really are? I thought they were quite a positive sort of organisation...
"Sir, I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
Though any limits should be applied equally/fairly, including the right to protest by people opposed to that view.
Getting back to Kate's original posting, there is grounds to flag this with Wikipedia. Agreeing with Kate, the comment is not impartial, and isn't cross-references to an external comment. Wikipedia postings can refer to different viewpoints, but can't itself propose one (else it will become a blog itself).
"Sir, I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
If you seriously care more for some 'right' that only exists in small parts of the world over the rights of the others not to have listen to extremist bullshit then you are being anti-social. Voltaire's argument was philosophical one-upmanship - designed to make himself appear superior, and his protagonist inferior while ignoring those who may not have the intellectual capacity to rise above the insult.
"Sir, I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."
If you seriously care more for some 'right' that only exists in small parts of the world over the rights of the others not to have listen to extremist bullshit then you are being anti-social. Voltaire's argument was philosophical one-upmanship - designed to make himself appear superior, and his protagonist inferior while ignoring those who may not have the intellectual capacity to rise above the insult.
I never looked at it in that light before, but that sounds quite astute. I believe in freedom of expression, but sometimes the extent to which people try and show their liberalism by defending vile fascists is almost like someone helping out at their own execution.
As for flagging Wikipedia, I have no idea how to go about doing that. The article is definitely impartial, though.
regardless of how 'enlightened' you think you are, if you profess not to be hypocritical and apply general principles, then they have to be applied across the board. Its not your business if an institution invites a party or guest you might abhor, for an invite only discussion, and the more you protest about it the more publicity the event gains. We live in a society where people can't even read out the names of dead iraqi's killed since 1991, in whitehall or parliament square without getting arrested. Who are you trying to take care of by regulating free speech, can't individuals make their own decisions in a free society? If you ask people who want to ban the BNP, its always the people who 'may' agree with them that they warn against, their not 'clever' enough like us to understand what's wrong with what's being said. its arrogance really masquerading as liberalism
If the BNP weren't so hate-fuelled and were able to put their point across without appealing to the negative emotions of fear and insecurity then they should be given the voice. Until then, bollocks to them - and any other extremist group.
