Thursday, 4 June 2020

It is naïve to think censors aim to ban all expressions of ideas they oppose.

Opponents of free speech, i.e. censors, are only too happy for the occasional expression of ideas they disagree with to be allowed. One reason is that they can then claim that the ideas they oppose are not being censored! That one normally fools the plebs.

As to exactly who is into the censorship business, the obvious examples are the Hitlers, Stalins and Saddam Husseins of this World. But there are a host of others, e.g. Twitter, where right of centre tweeters tend to get banned. And then there are Muslims: Muslim leaders at the UN have been trying for years to have criticism of Islam banned worldwide.

But as regards the idea that censors do not aim to ban all criticism of their ideas, doesn’t that mean that ideas which censors don’t like will then get an airing, which may hinder censors’ attempts to get their own ideas across? Well the answer to that is “not at all”, and the reason is this.

The bulk of the population are not remotely interested in logic, reason, facts and the like. They vastly prefer the easy option of simply listening to whoever shouts the loudest: i.e. they just accept the opinion they hear most frequently. That saves them having to think, which far too much like hard work for most people.

As Hitler, Goebbles and numerous other successful politicians / propagandists have said, the way to get an idea across is simply to repeat the idea over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Explanations as to exactly why the idea might be valid are a waste of time: as Ronald Regan rightly said, “If you have to explain, you’ve lost the argument”.

That is why Muslims are absolutely right to repeat the word “Islamo-phobia” like demented parrots: there is no point in trying to explain exactly why religions should have more immunity from criticism than political parties and similar. If you attempt the latter sort of logical / thoughtful consideration of this question, the eyes of the plebs will just glaze over.

Thus censors / opponents of free speech are more than happy for people to occasionally disagree with said censors /  opponents of free speech. They know perfectly well, or at least the more clued up ones know perfectly well, that the occasional expression of dissent won’t damage their cause in the least.

They also know that they only have to punish a few of those who disagree with them, and thousands will then self-censor. Muslims only need to kill one person who publishes anti-Islam cartoons, and a thousand would-be publishers of such cartoons think twice before publishing. Why take the risk of being killed or having your office fire-bombed? Assuming it’s an easy life you’re after, it’s best just to keep quiet – i.e. not publish. And as for Twitter, no one in their right mind persistently questions the alleged wonders of mass immigration on Twitter: they know perfecly well thery're likely to be banned if they do.

That's why it is important to stamp on any attempt to stifle free speech: just one instance of free speech being curtailed can result in hundreds of people then self-censoring.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a comment.