Freedom of speech

A number of years ago, listening to the radio as I drove home, an interview with a scientist started with him making the following statement;

"Although I believe in freedom of speech, I would make an exception with creationism and make it illegal to teach, propagate or in anyway encourage the belief in creationism, rather than evolution".

Thereby advertising the fact that he clearly didn't get the irony of his comment.

Or understood what freedom of speech means.

On a later occasion I heard another scientist make a similar statement with regards climate change and again wanting to criminalise anyone who promoted an alternative explanation.

Also of course starting with the comment reassuring his audience of his undying support for freedom of speech.

It's maybe just me, but a number of scientists I've met or seen in the media, come across as viewing themselves as being the intellectual crème de la crème. So the inability of so many of them to understand what freedom of speech means comes as a bit of a puzzle.

It seems to me at least that it clearly doesn't mean only allowing people to express opinions you agree with.

Of course scientists aren't the only ones advocating severe restrictions on the freedom of speech. You have groups campaigning for "safe spaces" and the right not to be offended. 

No one has the right not to be offended. All your opinions can be subjected to ridicule. It's just tough if you don't like it.

You also have representatives of religions demanding that their beliefs are protected from being subject to ridicule or intellectual challenge.

Which is absolutely wrong. We cannot impose a new set of blasphemy laws.

And the tentacles of this push for restrictions to the freedom of speech extend to issues such as racism, abortion and trans rights etc.

These are all important issues that go to the very heart of what sort of society we wish to be. So for clarity this is what I believe with regards the issues mentioned;

I am not a six day creationist. I believe in evolution.

I believe in climate change. I do however differ with the orthodox view on how to respond to this.

I have a faith. However I believe that those that don't are entitled to challenge this and even ridicule it.

Racism is wrong, however if you are a white supremacist I'm happy for you to propagate such a belief. I like to know if I'm wasting my time speaking to an idiot.

I wouldn't ban abortion, but I would restrict it's availability; I'd ban sex based abortion, and cut the legal period that it is available.

Trans rights. It is clear to me at least that this is a real expression of some people's view of themselves. But I would ensure that women still have their safe spaces and that women's sport is given legal protection from males claiming to be transitioning and dominating any competitions.

Anyone wishing to do so can make whatever criticism of what I write if they want, you will just need to be aware that if I think it's nonsense I will say so.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental requirement of a functioning democracy and when someone says otherwise, what they mean is they want other people's opinions criminalised and certainly not their own. Which must obviously be right in every aspect and protected from challenge.

I've noticed that it is at our elite universities, Oxford, LSE and St. Andrew's etc, where there appears to be the largest push back against freedom of speech amongst the students, resulting in people being banned from giving talks and lecturers hounded out of their jobs for what can only be described as 'wrong think'. 

All this is a fundamental challenge to democracy. And sadly an increasing number of people are questioning democracies benefits and suggesting alternatives, from all parts of the political spectrum. 

I have even seen it suggested that the way the Chinese Communist party is able to control it's citizens is a template for here.

This stupidity was particularly prevalent during COVID. 

Democracy is by far the best form of government and society. The list of benign dictators governing solely for the benefit of their countries citizens is vanishingly small.

And whilst I believe absolutely in freedom of speech, I would criminalise and imprison anyone who disagree's.

What is that you said? "Hypocrite? Moi? Not possible!"