If free speech means anything, we must extend it to people we think are vile
I disagree with Noam Chomsky on many things. But here are two similar quotes from him which I think are dead right.
and
To be absolutely precise, what I believe in is free speech within the law. If your speech is not libellous, encouraging violence or criminal activity, or otherwise contrary to the law - and I believe that laws which might restrict free speech should be drafted with great care not to restrict speech beyond what is absolutely essential to protect society - then you should be allowed to say things which I find vile.
Let's refer to a particular hard case.
Katie Hopkins often says disgraceful things.
She sometimes goes beyond saying things which most people disagree with into the realms where a lawyer or a court might be able to make a case that she has transgressed the law.
If so the courts should deal with her.
But however tempting the thought, it is not for the rest of us to try to silence her when she is within the law, even when she says things we despise.
Brendan O'Neill makes a strong case here that although he finds her vile, Twitter was wrong to suspend her account.
There is a difficult balance to strike here. Social media companies should have the right and arguably the duty to block threatening and abusive messages, particularly those targeting and attacking people, and those which are outside the law. But we need to ask ourselves the question - at what point does that become silencing people because we don't like their opinions?
if it is OK for social media platforms not just to remove offensive posts but to block the accounts of people for expressing unpopular opinions within the law, where is that going to stop?
I suggest the answer to that question is nowhere we want to go.
and
To be absolutely precise, what I believe in is free speech within the law. If your speech is not libellous, encouraging violence or criminal activity, or otherwise contrary to the law - and I believe that laws which might restrict free speech should be drafted with great care not to restrict speech beyond what is absolutely essential to protect society - then you should be allowed to say things which I find vile.
Let's refer to a particular hard case.
Katie Hopkins often says disgraceful things.
She sometimes goes beyond saying things which most people disagree with into the realms where a lawyer or a court might be able to make a case that she has transgressed the law.
If so the courts should deal with her.
But however tempting the thought, it is not for the rest of us to try to silence her when she is within the law, even when she says things we despise.
Brendan O'Neill makes a strong case here that although he finds her vile, Twitter was wrong to suspend her account.
There is a difficult balance to strike here. Social media companies should have the right and arguably the duty to block threatening and abusive messages, particularly those targeting and attacking people, and those which are outside the law. But we need to ask ourselves the question - at what point does that become silencing people because we don't like their opinions?
if it is OK for social media platforms not just to remove offensive posts but to block the accounts of people for expressing unpopular opinions within the law, where is that going to stop?
I suggest the answer to that question is nowhere we want to go.
Comments
The Planning Inspectorate, including the Chief Executive Sarah Richards, deem the following line to be Defamatory - "In the Report Mr D.. D.. and S.. S.. made no attempt to present an honest appraisal of the situation as it is legally, or as it is on the ground." I had even submitted evidence including a legal document to support this statement.
However as the Planning Inspectorate deemed the above statement in my submission to be defamatory (and I wouldn't change it) they refused to put my submission before the Inspector thus denying full and fair representation.
That is the Planning Inspectorate corrupted a quasi-judicial process!
Freedom of Speech doesn't exist when dealing with the UK Administration.
I presume that is why you only quote the first few words of the comment which you say the planning inspectorate considered defamatory. That avoids a legal problem with your post at the price of making it extremely difficult for anyone else to know which case you are writing about.
As you have not given any details of what the planning issue you wanted to make representation on was, which site, council planning document or planning appeal was involved, or when and where the planning process took place, or said anything from which one could reasonably expect that process could be identified, it is impossible for me to know whether I have ever seen the document you say was accused of being defamatory, let alone come to an informed opinion as to whether you have a reasonable argument or not.
If you have not already complained to the planning inspectorate and completed their complaints procedure I suggest you do this.
If you already have complained to the planning inspectorate and completed their complaints procedure and not received a satisfactory answer, you may well be able to complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service ombudsman. In that circumstance I recommend that you do so.
Do you I have nothing better to do than complain to the Parliamentary and Health Service ombudsman which can only be referred via an MP? What will the ombudsman conclude - you haven't suffered a severe enough injustice so they'll pretend nothing happened.
I've seen it all before.
Maladministration and corrupt practices are still systemic in the UK in 2020.
You gave no indication of what proposal was under consideration, which part of the UK it is located in, when the planning process to which you made a submission took place, or anything else from which I might have a chance of working out what you are writing about or whether you are making a reasonable point.
Since you did not give your name or say anything about yourself I have no idea whether you have anything better to do than complain to the Ombudsman, but the Ombudsman might have the ability to do more about it than you are ever going to achieve by making anonymous comments on someone else's blog.
In my experience Ombudsmen have been known to publish very scathing reports about councils or government departments and recommend that they pay compensation or take other corrective action. I don't know whether they would do that in this instance because I have no idea how strong a case you have.