Forum Topic

Alan,I am of the opinion that there are very few circumstances where free speech should be curtailed.  These would include harassment, incitement and the "fire in the theatre" scenario.  My main defence of this is that we can only progress by subjecting all ideas to critical analysis through reasoned debate.  This way, the bad ideas should be eliminated (perhaps a naive hope I realise).You say "It is easy to identify opinions that have no merit" - well in some cases yes.  You mention the flat earth idea.  This is so bad that just a few minutes with one of its adherents should be enough to persuade any reasonable person of its error.  But not all ideas are obviously bad - the current pandemic reveals many of these e.g. lockdown vs herd immunity.  And is it unreasonable to query the safety of a vaccine that has been hurriedly developed, tested and rushed into production?There is an obvious problem with banning ideas - they are immediately given credence.  Their supporters will say "Look - the powers have prohibited us from discussing this.  Obviously we are onto something."The reality regarding Covid-19 is that public opinion is being manipulated (see the SPI-B briefing paper:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887467/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf).  Read this and you can see the kind of paternalistic, technocratic thinking that pervades our political and bureaucrat class e.g. "The perceived levelof personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent using hard-hitting emotional messaging".  In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, unfortunately their credibility has been undermined by themselves (see for example Ben Goldacre's work on exposing the rigging of drug tests).  Likewise for other industries and government (e.g. dodgy dossier).  So if our rulers and their experts wish us to trust them, they have a lot of work to do to earn that trust. 

Andy Riley ● 2295d