Richard Murphy's Strange Relationship With Free Speech

Our old friend Richard Murphy is upset that some people have dared to charge him with hypocrisy. And in the subsequent hissy fit on his blog he reveals once again his curious relationship with the concept of free speech. He writes:

So what’s the real issue?

First of all – as I’ve often said the issue is one of intimidation – they seek to propagate the message that if anyone stands up to their vicious form of capitalism they will seek to crush them. So much for a belief in liberty! It takes courage to stand up to such behaviour. They know that. They want to stop others entering the fray by behaving as they do. In that way they hope to crush our current democratic way of life in the UK, Europe and beyond, not least by eliminating debate.

Now, I know there are a lot of people out there who might insult the likes of Murphy gratuitously. However, there is nothing attacking or intimidating about suggesting that someone who campaigns against (the perfectly legal) tax avoidance probably shouldn’t avoid tax himself. That isn’t trying to crush people; it is suggesting that people should aspire to meet the standards they set for others.

This is not stopping others from entering the fray; it is an open and honest dialogue. The sort of dialogue that Murphy himself does not allow. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the first comment on the post in question:

This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.

That’s right, Murphy is charging others with eliminating debate at the same time as not allowing a dialogue with anyone who does not follow his draconian comments policy – one that is designed to eliminate anyone's views if they dare not to agree with him.

So let’s rank the potential sins here – on the one hand, we have people calling others on hypocrisy when they see it which may make other hypocrites less likely to engage in public debate. On the other hand we have the likes of Murphy who do not allow those with whom they do not agree to talk in the first place. You can argue that both run the risk of damaging free speech and debate, but only the likes of Murphy proactively stop that free speech and debate. So Murphy is once again showing himself to be a hypocrite; championing debate while simultaneously not allowing it himself.