2023-06-27
Do we believe in "free speech"?
Well, James Delingpole is brave enough to say that "it depends".
And I think he's right.
Free speech in the right circumstances is very beneficial if it helps others to formulate their own views.
In the wrong circumstances it muddies the waters, confuses the listener, and and may even promote the madness of crowds ...
I also think that "free speech" doesn't include deliberate falsehoods half-truths omissions or incitement to criminality. To be useful it has to be honest peaceful and unthreatening.
Which introduces another problem - who is to judge this "honesty"? Rhetoric can be used for good or for ill, to inform or to confuse or to mislead. Caveat auditor.
Free speech also has to be undertaken on an appropriate playing-field that is capable of resolution. The genius of the Climate Change "debate" is that (a) Climate Change is very likely the most complex science studied by man (b) the debate is presented as an argument about that science (c) no ordinary person can ever know enough to argue such complex science exhaustively so they feel compelled to give way to the "scientists" (whose predictions have been unconvincing so far). Consequently on these grounds the climate change debate can never be concluded.
Not by arguing the intricacies of the "science" anyway - life is just too short.
But look at the track record of those scientists' predictions, or the historical records available, or the financial trail of the protagonists, and a different picture may emerge ...
My objective in setting up this site has always been to encourage readers to think outside their box, to entertain and consider new ideas (even "preposterous" ones) and to formulate their attitude to them accordingly. That attitude may be "believe" "reject" "yes but" or "OK, I don't know, but it might turn out to be pertinent" or even "I've still no idea".
An idea seen however is an idea that won't come as a total shock later!
