Principia
Originally posted by wemyss at Principia
Here are a few principles. They are the agreed principles of the partners in Bapton Books. It strikes us - as Borno State, in Nigeria, burns and Islamists hold hostages at (of course) a kosher shop in Paris and in Dammartin (where is Jeanne d’Arc when she’s wanted) - as important to state them anew.
(Yes, we quite realise many of you begin bricking it when principles are mentioned.)
Nothing excuses terrorism, murder, the deadliest form of censorship, and All That. Nothing.
‘“Blasphemy” laws’ are tyrannical.
The right to mock, insult, barrack, jeer, offend, and, yes, ‘blaspheme’ is a universal and - to borrow from some Enlightenment Englishmen-Abroad - inalienable right. It is an absolute right.
Censorship is evil.
Censors are shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
Those who defend, support, excuse, or temporise in any way with terrorism are worse.
Those who defend, support, excuse, or temporise in any way with censorship are worse.
The term for them is Orwell’s: they are objective pro-fascists. When, of course, they are not fascists themselves.
There is no ‘right’ to be protected from being offended. NONE. Those who pretend there is such a right are shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
The shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding, who are indulging in ‘yes-but’ editorialising and blaming the victims for provoking their own murders are morally inferior (if that were conceivable) even to persons who blame actual rape victims for actually being raped. They are, in short, shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
There is no such thing as ‘hate speech’. It is a construct developed in the interest of censorship by shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
Specifically, the law, in a country with any pretensions to freedom, must never recognise such a (purported) category as ‘hate speech’. (Yes, we know the Continentals do, in a misguided attempt to rejoin the human race after their XXth C behaviour, and it’s infected the UK and is being pushed - by shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding - in the US; but the Continent is governed by shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.)
‘Prior restraint’ of speech - including art, actions, performances, and public assembly - by the State, and prosecution of speech after the fact, it having been uttered, can be justified only when and if the speech poses an immediate and overwhelming threat to public safety and security (‘Oh, look what I have found: the plan to rescue the Dammartin hostages! I’ll Tweet it!’) or is calculated or CLEARLY liable to provoke REASONABLE people actually then present into an IMMEDIATE breach of the peace. Or of course if it’s kiddy-fiddling (for which even prior restraint is justifiable), or a Ponzi scheme or some such fraud (which of course merits subsequent prosecution and might under very special circumstances justify prior restraint).
Civil liability for speech as above defined cannot and must not invoke the power of the State to effect a prior restraint and must be governed by the actual laws of tort and of damages. (Nota bene: you cannot libel the dead. Yes, that includes religious figures.)
You are of course free not only to disagree, but freely to express your disagreement with these principles, and even - were you capable of it - to argue against them. Whereupon we have the absolute right to mock, insult, barrack, jeer at, and offend you, by the simple expedient of noting quite loudly that you have outed yourself as a shit, coward, poltroon, incipient tyrant, bootlicker and creature to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascist, actual fascist, or a combination of any or all of the preceding. Or Anjem Choudary (but we repeat ourselves).
We have little use and less respect for those choosing to ignore - as our feed rather suggests many are so choosing - actual macro-aggressions in favour of their pet King Charles’ heads just now.
And of course, whatever the subject, we close by repeating, each of us, in unison: Ceterum censeo Islamismum esse delendam.
Here are a few principles. They are the agreed principles of the partners in Bapton Books. It strikes us - as Borno State, in Nigeria, burns and Islamists hold hostages at (of course) a kosher shop in Paris and in Dammartin (where is Jeanne d’Arc when she’s wanted) - as important to state them anew.
(Yes, we quite realise many of you begin bricking it when principles are mentioned.)
Nothing excuses terrorism, murder, the deadliest form of censorship, and All That. Nothing.
‘“Blasphemy” laws’ are tyrannical.
The right to mock, insult, barrack, jeer, offend, and, yes, ‘blaspheme’ is a universal and - to borrow from some Enlightenment Englishmen-Abroad - inalienable right. It is an absolute right.
Censorship is evil.
Censors are shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
Those who defend, support, excuse, or temporise in any way with terrorism are worse.
Those who defend, support, excuse, or temporise in any way with censorship are worse.
The term for them is Orwell’s: they are objective pro-fascists. When, of course, they are not fascists themselves.
There is no ‘right’ to be protected from being offended. NONE. Those who pretend there is such a right are shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
The shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding, who are indulging in ‘yes-but’ editorialising and blaming the victims for provoking their own murders are morally inferior (if that were conceivable) even to persons who blame actual rape victims for actually being raped. They are, in short, shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
There is no such thing as ‘hate speech’. It is a construct developed in the interest of censorship by shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.
Specifically, the law, in a country with any pretensions to freedom, must never recognise such a (purported) category as ‘hate speech’. (Yes, we know the Continentals do, in a misguided attempt to rejoin the human race after their XXth C behaviour, and it’s infected the UK and is being pushed - by shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding - in the US; but the Continent is governed by shits, cowards, poltroons, incipient tyrants, bootlickers and creatures to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascists, actual fascists, or a combination of any or all of the preceding.)
‘Prior restraint’ of speech - including art, actions, performances, and public assembly - by the State, and prosecution of speech after the fact, it having been uttered, can be justified only when and if the speech poses an immediate and overwhelming threat to public safety and security (‘Oh, look what I have found: the plan to rescue the Dammartin hostages! I’ll Tweet it!’) or is calculated or CLEARLY liable to provoke REASONABLE people actually then present into an IMMEDIATE breach of the peace. Or of course if it’s kiddy-fiddling (for which even prior restraint is justifiable), or a Ponzi scheme or some such fraud (which of course merits subsequent prosecution and might under very special circumstances justify prior restraint).
Civil liability for speech as above defined cannot and must not invoke the power of the State to effect a prior restraint and must be governed by the actual laws of tort and of damages. (Nota bene: you cannot libel the dead. Yes, that includes religious figures.)
You are of course free not only to disagree, but freely to express your disagreement with these principles, and even - were you capable of it - to argue against them. Whereupon we have the absolute right to mock, insult, barrack, jeer at, and offend you, by the simple expedient of noting quite loudly that you have outed yourself as a shit, coward, poltroon, incipient tyrant, bootlicker and creature to incipient or actual tyrants, objective pro-fascist, actual fascist, or a combination of any or all of the preceding. Or Anjem Choudary (but we repeat ourselves).
We have little use and less respect for those choosing to ignore - as our feed rather suggests many are so choosing - actual macro-aggressions in favour of their pet King Charles’ heads just now.
And of course, whatever the subject, we close by repeating, each of us, in unison: Ceterum censeo Islamismum esse delendam.