We read:
"There has been widespread support within Norway for a closed trial, to deny Breivik the platform he appears to be seeking. Given the scale of what has happened there is unquestionably something obscene about the prospect of watching him expound his lunatic worldview to an international audience.
But the fear that such exposure would necessarily boost Breivik’s cause, and encourage likeminded bigots elsewhere, must be resisted. In fact it is precisely on occasions like these that a vibrant public sphere matters most.
The belief that freedom of expression is the fundamental requirement of an open society is based on the idea that grievances like those which animate racist and xenophobic political groups throughout Europe are better aired in the context of civilized debate rather than allowed to fester in private societies.
Distasteful as it may seem to many of us, it is better in the long run for prejudices to be openly debated and defeated by better arguments. Otherwise the hatreds of these groups become self-reinforcing.
Prejudice and paranoia never survive the rigours of open debate, and the horrors of the massacre in Norway should not be allowed to obscure this important truth.
Source
2 comments:
However, there is no freedom of expression in Norway. Any disparaging views of immigration, certain cultures, and religions have been outlawed. As articles on the Politically Correct blog have pointed out, he may not have resorted to violence or might have revealed his growing violent political psychosis had it been legal for him to express them. Keeping views silent in Norway is in keeping with their totalitarian view points.
I think Jon's earlier comment hit the nail on the head. You can either have vigorous and sometimes obnoxious speech, or you can have bullets and bombs. I think the choice should be obvious.
Post a Comment