You raise some good questions. I have also posed them. Of course, such questions should be answered. If they are not properly answered, you might conclude that they cannot actually receive a satisfactory response.

A few years ago we entered the twilight era of the post-apartheid democracy. It is an era where nothing can be clearly seen. Subterfuge rules. To be honest, I find it quite unsettling. There is a monster lurking on the horizon and virtually nobody wants to identify it or even admit that it exists. If one takes a pair of binoculars out, one is immediately labelled “racist” “reactionary” or “idiotic”. It is the era of denialism and one where
questions remain unanswered.

I know that. Mine was just a bit of embroidery or an afterthought.

Happy New Year.

I am not sure if this is appropriate here, but it always seems to me that any restriction on freedom of speech must produce more problems than solutions.

Even to prevent someone expressing a deeply offensive racist view (as many consider Zapiro’s famous/infamous cartoon to be, for instance) is in some awkward sense a curtailment of free speech, presumably justified by the claim that ‘others’, like children, need protection from things they are incapable of handling by themselves.

But how can a watertight case for limitations and bans ever be made where the hope is for an open society of free – and adult – individuals?

Put it like this: we can all think of things that we can probably agree we should not be ‘allowed’ to say. But what things should we not be ‘allowed’ to hear? And who is to take that decision on themselves and make it for us?

It provdies something of a path through these quicksands to shift perspective – to view the subject not in terms of ‘freedom of speech’ at all, but to grasp that the real danger is there is no logical limit to censorship.

Open the door to it and sooner or later it takes over the whole house.

Blacklist Dictator is not the champion of freedom of expression :

http://fixthefxi.blogspot.com/2007/11/adam-habib-south-africa-and-us.html

Here he tries to justify why the USA was right in blocking Prof Habib’s visit.

In other words freedom of expression that he agrees with seems to be the order of the day.

You might want to run through that blog to see :

1. The personal and abusive attacks he makes on many of the academics of this country.

2. How popular his own blog actually was.

Somehow he feels that the people who visit “Traps” are here to see him.

They don’t consider the topics or the writer they’re actually here to visit him.

If the M & G fail to include one of his comments it constitutes a conspiracy against him but he can quite happily see one of our professors being denied access to the USA.

Whether you agree with Prof Habib or not freedom of speech (particularly if you hold yourself out as such)should be paramount.

If people think that my “SA/ZIM” thesis is rubbish, they should clearly outline precisely where I have gone wrong. If nobody is willing or able to do so, one might conclude that there is “method in my madness”.

Michael Trapido has now stated that he will “ignore” all my comments. Of course, he is within his rights and I only demand that my comments are published on this blog in accordnace with the editorial guidelines.

Trapido admits that my SA/ZIM comment was “censored” by Thought Leader but vehmently condemns me for reporting the matter to The Freedom Of Expression Institute. Of course I have no faith in The FXI but that isanother can of worms!

I will let you draw your own conclusions.

Zim courts back Mugabe
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7805733.stm

As an aside to this discussion, it is extremely surprising that BL.D’s post was edited out and pleasing, as expected, that it was not by you.

Strange how people judge some views to be – what? -’unacceptable’ and yet, when they do, suppose others to be incapable of reaching the same conclusion on their own.

Thank you for (presumably) arguing and winning that you do not want or need censorship on your site.