banning free speech

difficult choices of a free society

So in the words of many, this is probably a justified policy. It effectively bans a lunatic from entering the UK on the basis that they're a lunatic that we, in polite society, do not agree with. Unfortunately, much as many of Savage's views are crazy, biased, or unsubstantiated, they do not constitute hate speech of a sort calculated to trigger a societal reaction (and a violent one at that). There are Islamic extremists who do exhort their listeners or followers to attack infidels. That's the sort of thing that doesn't make it into a polite liberal society as protected speech. Crazy opinions of a right-wing lunatic with a microphone have the misfortune of being something we have every right to protect.

Really as I have observed the sort of media revolution that has occurred in my brief time alive, it seems more like the problem is that people like Savage are increasingly shouting into a vacuum (just as I have been here). And that has the effect of increasing the shrill and inane commentaries that such people make. In a world where we are free to choose the media forums we access for information and entertainment, we will gravitate toward the ones that we are most comfortable with and away from those which shock our conscience or our thoughts with disquieting opinions. That creates a lot of problems where those thoughts we push ourselves into are incomplete, unrepresentative, or incoherent. It is not, however, much of our business to ban or to restrict access to such thoughts in a free society (like that of the UK). It is instead incumbent on us to make reasonable overtures of our own, to appeal both to the base constituents who understand our own opinions and to appeal broadly to those who do not yet hold rigidly formed and opposing opinions of their own. As a result, however distasteful the practices of others tend to be, I find it necessary to protect their exercise of freedom as best as possible. And this would include the rampaging thoughts of Mr Savage. Even though I do not care to hear his thoughts myself. I would exercise the same principle should someone seek to silence various Faux news commentators. The issue in my mind would be the banning of their opinions. If Fox fires such people because there is less of an audience for their ideas and opinions, then that's fine with me (and probably the ideal circumstance since it would mean there are more informed and less opinionated people in the country). If they're being banned by government action, that's a totally different game.