Following a registered Republican’s failed ‘assassination’ attempt of Donald Trump, Nigel Farage attempts to blame Jo Brand. Yes he attempts to blame a UK comedian for a joke made five years ago. Not himself. Not his racist, homophobic, misogynist nasty followers who spew hate with every breathe. Nope. A comedian who made a joke that Nigel Farage assumes is about him.
For those who challenge that it was a joke tell that to the people who hysterically laughed at it.
Now fast forward five years and this joke is apparently the reason someone failed to assassinate Donald Trump.
Nigel Farage blaming the libs and comedian Jo Brand for the pretext to the shooting of Donald Trump is the most confected and poorly rehearsed load of bollocks since the last time he opened his gob and mouth farted a load of absolute shite#bbclaurak
— Stuzi 🐝🐝 (@stuzi_pants) July 14, 2024
pic.twitter.com/62VA6YausB
At the time Messrs Baddiel and Skinner articulated why Farage is a hypocrite and why people explode with indignation at every chance they get just so they can be permanently angry. The same people who argue that “our free speech is being taken away” when they are challenged on their racism, homophobia, misogyny….
Farage and his meatheads might want to look closer to home:
Farage and his rabid disciples are just hypocrites. Sadly, they are too dull witted to see it.
Free speech is either free to all or none at all
Free speech is often heralded as a cornerstone of democratic societies, an essential right that underpins the very fabric of freedom. Advocates for free speech, often referred to as the “pro-free speech brigade,” vigorously champion the right to express ideas without fear of censorship or reprisal. However, a critical examination reveals a layer of hypocrisy within this movement, as the commitment to free speech frequently falters when the speech in question contradicts their own views or interests.
Free speech is rooted in the belief that individuals should be able to express their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs without undue interference or punishment from the state or other entities. It is considered vital for the flourishing of democracy, the pursuit of truth, and the protection of individual autonomy. The pro-free speech brigade positions itself as the staunch defenders of these principles, advocating against censorship and for the open exchange of ideas.
Despite their vocal support for free speech, members of the pro-free speech brigade often exhibit selective defence of speech. This selectivity is evident in several key areas.
Firstly, political partisanship is a significant issue. Many pro-free speech advocates are quick to defend speech that aligns with their political beliefs while calling for the censorship or silencing of opposing viewpoints. For instance, conservative proponents may champion the right to express controversial or offensive opinions but support the suppression of progressive voices under the guise of maintaining public order or decency. Conversely, liberal advocates may decry hate speech but dismiss conservative perspectives as harmful or intolerable.
Secondly, the issue of social media and corporate censorship cannot be overlooked. The pro-free speech brigade often targets government censorship while ignoring or even supporting corporate censorship on social media platforms. These platforms, which have become essential venues for public discourse, routinely moderate content in ways that reflect their policies and interests. Pro-free speech advocates may condemn government actions against speech but remain silent or supportive when private companies engage in similar practices, particularly if it benefits their ideological allies.
Thirdly, in academic and cultural contexts, the pro-free speech brigade sometimes endorses the silencing of dissenting voices through disinvitations, protests, or calls for boycotts. When controversial speakers are invited to campuses or public forums, these advocates may demand their removal, citing the potential harm their ideas could cause. This stance contradicts the fundamental principle of free speech, which requires tolerating and engaging with opposing viewpoints, even those considered offensive or dangerous.
The hypocrisy of the pro-free speech brigade is further highlighted by specific cases and events. One notable example is the controversy surrounding conservative speakers on college campuses. While these advocates argue that conservative voices are being unfairly silenced, they often fail to acknowledge or defend the free speech rights of liberal speakers who face similar opposition in conservative-dominated areas.
Another example is the reaction to protests and demonstrations. Pro-free speech advocates may support the right to protest when it aligns with their beliefs but call for law enforcement intervention and stricter regulations when faced with protests they oppose. This inconsistency reveals a double standard that undermines their credibility as impartial defenders of free speech.
The pro-free speech brigade’s hypocrisy is a significant impediment to the genuine promotion and protection of free speech. By selectively defending speech that aligns with their interests and failing to uphold the same principles for opposing viewpoints, they erode the very foundation of the right they claim to champion. To truly defend free speech, advocates must apply their principles consistently, recognising that the right to free expression must be protected for all, regardless of the content or viewpoint of the speech. Only through such an unwavering commitment can the true essence of free speech be preserved and upheld in democratic societies.
Now let’s finish with a joke.
‘If Alec Baldwin had done it he wouldn’t have missed’.
KEEP US ALIVE and join us in helping to bring reality and decency back by SUBSCRIBING to our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQ1Ll1ylCg8U19AhNl-NoTg AND SUPPORTING US where you can: Award Winning Independent Citizen Media Needs Your Help. PLEASE SUPPORT US FOR JUST £2 A MONTH https://dorseteye.com/donate/
