Let me reply to your final comment:

No one is under any obligation to repeat what Griffin has said, to interview him, to participate in the same debates with him. Agreed?

How is the exercise of these rights, or our desire that people should exercise these rights, a curtailment of freedom of speech?

On commercial logic, you are probably right – but then there is no moral argument against us intervening in the commercial logic so that it better reflects our own standpoint – in this case, by a boycott.

On interviewing the BNP, as I said before, how long has this defence of “We’re only doing it to show them up, honest guv” been used? How many more exposés are required before it just becomes free publicity?

If showing them up is what is at stake, there are plenty of ways to do that – and an interview with Griffin is probably the weakest, if it counts at all.

Incidentally, no one used the the defence that “it’s not effective”. It’s comments like that which lead me to suspect you aren’t even trying to understand what’s being said here.

I know you are not calling for a change in the law banning the BNP from speaking. But the freedom to deny fascists a platform, and the denial of the freedom of fascists to present their odious views (for us to mock, expose, and smash), seem to me rather close. It not being effective is not a particularly good defence.

I don’t see any sign that Total Politics is being ‘compelled to be instrumental in putting forward these beliefs’. It is probably dirty commercial logic that drives their decision. Or, like me, they think that interviewing the BNP is the best way of showing them up as the idiots they are.

best, Giles

For me I am an unequivocal supporter of no platform for fascists. It is a basic fundamental principle and frankly, freethinking, I don’t understand why the concept of no platform is difficult to get your head around and confusing it with censorship.

Oh, now I see. People who don’t spew bullshit are still totally secure. That’s alright then. I have no objections.

1. No one is calling for a ban on the BNP making statements.
2. The boycott is not aimed at creating such a ban.
3. No rights to freedom of speech are being infringed.

No Platform to Fascists is a policy which does not seek to engage the organs of the state in creating a ban. We do aim to create pressure on other political actors not to share platforms with, or give publicity to the mouthpieces of the bullshit spewed by the BNP.

You can agree or disagree with the efficacy of the tactic, but repeating the usual trope that this threatens their rights to freedom of speech is silly.

When I mentioned publications turning over space to the BNP, I was extrapolating from Pogo’s conflation of the right to speak and the right to be heard. If all political parties have a right to be heard, then surely we can’t simply leave matters to editors and journalists. All publications should turn over space.

Who is demanding that all publications turn over space to the BNP? Is that why TP are doing the interview – because of some such demand? Someone should be told, that’s a scandal ….