It might even be correct, for some sections of the Left, but not for me and other Marxists, and not for Paul Sagar. Perhaps it might be a good idea, as Paul suggested, to read what you’re commenting on.

With the Guardian, we would have no effect, even though I think it is the wrong step for them to take. I personally think John Harris is an utter prat who would understand proper conceptions of freedom of speech and action if they hit him on the head from a great height.

Of course, what is inconsistent is to:

a) go on about how important civil liberties/freedom of speech is when it comes to political beliefs you loathe, and that the best way to defeat the opposition is through open and transparent debate;

b) support the curtailing through legal means of the freedom of groups of people to come together and defend their rights through collective action e.g. http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-part-in-downfall-of-dock-labour.html

But we wouldn’t expect you to be consistent.

But I wouldn’t expect you to be consistent….

If we look at the principles of harm then it could be agrued that by allowing a platform for Griffin will cause harm to potential migrants to the UK as he argues for closure of borders and an end to migration. But we can also say that by denying a platform for Griffin to speak then harm will be caused to people who are seeking hosuing in the UK but are denied it because the housing is given to migrants. So Mills can be used to argue effectively for both sides.

I think the arguemnt for denying a platform Griffin is not based in Mills but Feinbergs principle of offence. IE your feelings are hurt. Mill’s principles do not allow for hurt feelings to be used as a basis for his principle of hurt and how it relates to society and liberty.

1. I do not troll other blog – point me in the direction of any blog that I have trolled.

2. I am nmot a member of the BNP thanks to the EHRC closing the membership of the political party. fortunately the membership is now open and when I can get through on the phone I will be joining.

3. how do you know i have not read JS Mill? In fact I studied Priniples of Political Economy and JS Mills views on weealth and the material when I did my degree. While I don’t agree with a lot of what he proposed some ideals are sound.

On the subject you bring up, however, what part of the freedom to speak, however social, consists of the right to have an interview published in a magazine?

The Press as a whole are rather problematic for Mill’s concept of freedom of speech. Editors decide the question of what people can and cannot hear every day. Freedom of speech in the real world, rather than in Mill, does not exist in a vacuum and thereby Mill’s contention that we should be as contrary and blind as we like as long as we do not decide for everyone else is plainly invalid.

At no time does everyone have equal access to the media, and nor will that ever be the case in a system based on private property, where the whims of owners (expressed openly or covertly) or the profit motive (through subscriptions or advertisement) or implicit ideology (recognized as ‘common sense’, or the various half-baked ideas that stem from our traditions and every-day practices) are allowed to influence things through individuals with no accountability.

So long as we tolerate such a system, then all that remains is for us to exert pressure where we can, as a political movement, to prejudice things in our favour. I find it interesting that we should stand condemned for it, whilst the others who practice it as a matter of course are simply the legitimate editors and journalists and what have you.

If Paul’s an idiot, bearing in mind he knows his JS Mill ten times better than I do, for I never had the patience with it, then I’m happy to be one too.

Idiot

To try and restrict another’s freedom to speak is clearly contrary to the ideals that underpin freedom of speech. That does not make the position invalid. But it is best to be realistic about what one is advocating.