Round at Harry's Place, Peter Tatchell discusses whether the Oxford Union should be hosting David Irving and Nick Griffin in the debate this evening. He thinks they shouldn't be, and I agree with that. But he argues for the view in an ambiguous way, confusing the issue of whether free speech rights should be extended to fascists with the question whether individuals or organizations are obliged to offer fascists a platform on which to express their views. Thus Peter asks:
Are fascists entitled to free speech? Or are some people so threatening and dangerous - especially to minority race, sexuality and faith communities - that it is legitimate to limit their freedom of expression?... [W]hy should fascists be given free speech when they would, if given half a chance, deny free speech to others?Fascists are entitled to free speech if we consider this to be a basic human right. Of course, that right is not absolute; there is a limit that prohibits incitement to violence. But within that limit fascists are - and they should be - free to say what they please. The question why they should be when they would deny the same right to others isn't to the point. You don't have to qualify to enjoy rights of free speech. That's the point of treating them as rights.
From what Peter Tatchell goes on to argue, however, it becomes clear that he doesn't need to compromise free speech principles to think that the Oxford Union shouldn't have invited Irving or Griffin:
Support for free speech does not oblige the Oxford Union to reward these men with a prestigious public platform, which will give them an air of respectability, raise their public profile and allow them to espouse their intolerant views. It is helping them propagate their bigotry. Not offering hate-mongers a platform is not the same as banning them.Precisely so. The same reasons that told against Columbia University's invitation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back in September apply in this case.