Why nihilist neutralism is not a regard for free speech

Fat Man on a Keyboard: We've been here before:

What is staggering about all this is the failure to discriminate. If a public institution thinks that its role is to promote complete bollocks as part of a "range of views" then we are lost. If it cannot discriminate between lies and truth then we sink into a relativist hell.

I do not want to live in a society that bans books, imprisons journalists, persecutes writers and closes down newspapers. In that sense I am a free speech militant. However, we should notice something here. The writers trying to weasel their way to acceptability tell lies and seek to suppress truth. They are the book burners and the censors in the making, using 'intellectual freedom' as a cover. To support free speech is not a neutral act, it is to be a partisan for truth. Above all, it is to be a partisan for humanist values.

Partisans do not meekly surrender to lies. Partisans do not wallow in the fake neutrality of 'balance'. That is cowardice. Partisans contest, challenge and ridicule. They may not ban it, but they treat nonsense with contempt. They refuse to legitimate the vile filth of murderous prejudice, rooted in lies and dripping with irrational hatred. And they most certainly do not allow public institutions to host rabid nonsense in the name of 'free speech'.

Well said! More to come.

Powered by ScribeFire.