Steve Bannon, I disagree with almost everything you say, but I will always defend your right to say it. This should be one's attitude if they claim to support free speech.
source: Wikimedia Commons
Free speech isn't worth anything if you do not grant that right to the ones you disagree with. This shouldn't shock or surprise anyone and I would like to believe that this goes without saying. Yet, time and time again, when some public figure with controversial, or even detestable ideas and opinions is invited on a public platform to speak, the protest against that person's ideas ends up as an attempt to prevent him or her to speak. Most recently this happened at the Oxford Union where right-wing nationalist populist Steve Bannon was invited to a public debate with the students of that university.
Right after Bannon's invitation to speak, a protest was organized, which is a good thing; the right to protest is also a crucial part of free speech. But on the day of the public debate, the protesters outside formed a human wall, deliberately blocking entrance to the building for the speaker and the audience. And that's far from okay, that's showing that you do not understand what free speech is about. You should have known that you grant Bannon a victory, right there; the publicity your action generates is priceless. And you failed; I just now listened to Bannon's speech and the questions and his answers, you blocked nothing.
"Those who do not support free speech for those they despise do not support free speech at all."
Noam Chomsky
I don't agree with Bannon or Trump because I judge them both on their actions, not their words. Bannon's words were inspiring for a good part; his analysis on the rise of Trump was accurate as he described his electoral victory as the result of decades of politics in favor of the money elite. This spawned the angry workers in the middle class, who voted for Trump as a protest vote. Same thing with the rise of right wing nationalist political parties in Europe, and Brexit; all a direct result of decades of political and economical neglect of the middle working class.
Like Trump, Bannon has the right words to lure you in, but I was delighted to hear the students' questions, that showed they were looking right through the rhetoric, and criticizing the actions of the people, Trump's administration, he supports; Bannon had a series of non-answers stressing the fight against the money-elite... Which would be hilarious if not so many people actually fell for the righteous rhetoric. Bannon is a good speaker and plays his role well for the fringe on the right. But the students that tried to prevent the debate altogether have expanded his platform considerably, and that's not helping. It's giving rise to articles and videos like Why Leftists HATE Free Speech. It's like you're advocating freedom from speech you don't like, as opposed to freedom of speech.
source: Wikipedia
The attempted siege on Bannon's free speech is made complete by the reactions on so called "liberal" media. "By inviting Steve Bannon to speak, the Oxford Union has handed him a victory," is the headline above a CNN article about the event. Like many of the protesters, CNN turns the three way table around 33 degrees and blames Oxford university for giving Bannon a public platform, failing, or unwilling, to see that the attempts to discredit or silence him are the real victory. Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Milo Yiannopoulos ride this same wave; debate them, listen to them, try to learn the secret of their popular success and defend their right to make public their opinions and ideologies however ugly they may be.
The CNN article concludes:
I asked the former Oxford Union President whether there was anyone whose invitation they would deem a "move too far" for the Union. After a pause, they replied: "Off the top of my head, I think anyone who would use it to break the law -- slander, hate speech etc. And anyone whose physical presence would endanger the students.
"I would also say that if someone very very controversial is invited, it should be the case that they have to submit to lots of questions and challenges from the audience. If not, that obviates the point."
To my mind, that point is superseded by another. If flexing the intellectual muscles of a group of students comes at the cost of amplifying a man whose political program thus far has endangered the lives of thousands -- even millions -- of people across the world, and who is not done yet, it is not worth it.
source: CNN
The former Oxford Union President has all the right things to say about how free speech works. The very last paragraph, containing the reporter's conclusion, is wrong in my opinion. You can disagree with their political program and their political actions, but what use is there to disagreeing if the one you disagree with is only allowed to whisper secretly? What kind of democracy do you envision where the electorate needs to be protected from opposing views? Do you not trust me to decide for myself if Bannon is a racist, or fascist or whatever, after listening to him? Here's the entire speech with Q&A, you decide for yourself:
Steve Bannon | Full Address and Q&A | Oxford Union
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep steeming!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas. It's what Steemit is made for!
Just for Full Disclosure, I'm invested in these crypto-currencies:
Bitcoin | Litecoin | EOS | OmiseGo | FunFair | KIN | Pillar | DENT | Polymath | XDCE | 0x | Decred | Ethereum | Carmel | XYO
@helpie is a WITNESS now! So please help @helpie help you by voting for us here!
