Refuting Richard Murphy: Freedom isn't Censorship

It has been commented on elsewhere over the course of the weekend, but I’d like to take a detailed look at a farcical comment on a farcical post on the blog of one Richard Murphy. He starts with an eye-opening, almost staggering bit of doublethink:

Censorship is an essential part of freedom

Really? I’d say censorship is, and always has been, an enemy of freedom. But let’s see how Murphy backs up his frankly audacious beginning.

Only those on the autistic spectrum fail to understand that editing is essential

Hmmm, I’m pretty sure that is (a) inaccurate and therefore (b) pretty insulting to those who happen to be on the autism spectrum. Perhaps someone needs to censor Murphy. At least, as we shall come to see, according to his own "logic".

Anyone with any sense does it persistently - not least because most of us do no wish to cause offence

But editing has also to be enforced on occasion. We protect the vulnerable - on grounds of gender, age, race, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, national origin and more - and rightly so

They must have the right to live unimpeded by those who would pick on them. This is done out of respect for them - we choose their rights over those of their oppressors, and rightly so

First things first, note how the word “censorship” seems to have been replaced with the much less controversial word “editing”.

But here is an essential point: Murphy seems to think that those who are discriminated against or oppressed are best served by trying to silence those who would discriminate against them/oppress them - as an aside, maybe we should oppress those who use autism as an insult - like Murphy. Unfortunately, this doesn’t tend to work. It is what Nu Labour tried to do for circa 10 years to the BNP, with the end result that the BNP started to look like martyrs and ended up making electoral headway. When the BNP were finally allowed to speak, more intelligent people showed just how crass their opinions were and they got their butts kicked in the last election. The message is clear: if you want to stop someone from oppressing someone else then simply let them talk and then discredit their opinions through superior argument. To me, it reeks of cowardice and fear about the efficacy of a counter-argument if you suppress someone else’s comment.

Well, I happen to think the right to free comment has also to be protected. If we do not then the right of free speech goes

Yet almost by very definition the right to free comment is being actively attacked if comments are censored.

And I, along with many others, think there is a coterie from the far right who do act deliberately and aggressively on web sites designed to encourage informed comment whose sole desire is to suppress that comment by imposing their will, aggressively

And I, along with many others, believe that there are a lot of sanctimonious people out there who are trying to impose their will by censoring others who happen to disagree with them. Like Mr Murphy.

That is in my opinion as oppressive as picking on a person for any of the reasons noted above - it is removing a persons liberty, their right to speak freely without fear, and to express a legitimate view without being intimidated

If you want to help someone to express their views without feeling intimidated, then stand up for them when they get abused.

Trying to oppress the oppressors simply makes you as bad as them, albeit through the use of different methods of oppression.

I see intimidation daily in the comments received here

I see it daily on CiF

I believe if the left are the defenders of free speech - and there’s not a shadow of doubt that left wing libertarians are just that - because unlike those who claim to be libertarians from the right we believe in the rights of all, then we have to say that the right of all to comment without fear of abuse and aggression has to be protected

If the Left are made up of people like you, Mr Murphy, then the Left represent the would-be destroyers of free speech.

That does not stop the right commenting

But yes it would prevent commentary from those known to be persistently abusive, whether on the site in question or elsewhere
I believe the value of CiF would sky rocket as a result

The value of CiF – which is limited at best – would not be aided by further censorship. If anything, that would make it more lopsided and would cease to make the comment there free. Perhaps it can be CiC instead – Comment is Censored.

And this is not censorship - it is standing up for free speech. It is opposing oppression. And it is saying editorial freedom is OK - after all, I’m not saying any bog should be shut. I’m not stopping any view point being expressed. I’m saying the right to edit is a freedom and a massively under used one on the left

The freedom to edit is not the same as the right to censor comments. And if you are censoring comments, then you are stopping viewpoints being expressed. See, an angry and/or abusive viewpoint is still a viewpoint. Mr Murphy needs to say what he means, and acknowledge that he is advocating censorship, and that by definition is a threat to free speech.

It’s massively used on the right. A friend of mine tells of seeking to place 25 comments, all mildly left of centre bar one on the Telegraph blog. 24 were blocked. The one where he agreed with Simon Heffer on classical music got through

I have a friend who told me that this is bollocks. Actually, I don’t, but anecdotal evidence like this generally is a complete waste of time.

So have no doubt the right censor on grounds of politics - and that apparently is fine

No, that isn’t fine. I don’t care who is trying to censor someone or what their political views are; they are wrong if they are trying to censor.

I’m not suggesting that. I’m just saying decency should prevail

And I think that’s completely and utterly reasonable

Except what is decency? Let’s try to spell it out – what is exactly is decency? Is it not swearing? Is it not calling someone stupid? Is it not disagreeing with someone? Is it not consistently calling into question someone else’s assertions when you do not agree with them? Is it indecent to question the wisdom of one Richard Murphy?

I think these final words in his comment show the truth about the Murphy definition of freedom:

And if you don’t understand that ask serious questions of yourself. But not here

What a smug and arrogant conclusion to a draconian and utterly illiberal comment, since the person Murphy was responding to was not thuggish, or abusive, or bullying. They were simply questioning Murphy's comments. It appears that, like so many people who believe they have discovered the truth, Murphy cannot bear dissent. Freedom for him is not so much the freedom to debate with him; it is about having the freedom to agree with him or not having the right to comment. Don't believe me? Take a look at the sixth requirement that a comment has to meet in order to be published on his site:

6. It is not questioning the fundamental tenets on which this blog is based.

Richard Murphy, trying to paint himself as a champion of free speech while he suppresses it.

Pathetic.