I read this yesterday in the conclusion to a newsletter from the Institute for Economic Affairs:
Speech is not violence. Words cannot injure or compel a person to hate or riot. Consequently, the state has very little business policing it, and the outcomes are usually dire when it tries.
The author was someone called Harrison Griffiths, who is apparently the IEA Communications Manager.
It's odd that someone styling themselves as a communications manager does not think words can injure or incite action. The whole reason to communicate is to persuade another of the relevance of the action you promote. And if the action that is promoted is to incite violence on the basis of hate then, of course, words can injure, whether that be the direct result of that violence or the indirect result of the threat implicit in it. Anyone claiming otherwise is telling an obvious untruth, in my opinion. If they claim they are not, then again in my opinion, they are seriously deluded, and question has to be asked as to why they might have adopted this position.
I have long been worried about the activities of the IEA and its related think tanks. Their corrosive role in society has been quite extraordinary. Given my work on tax havens in the past, I have long run up against them. But, of all the dangerous things I have seen them suggest this might be the most dangerous of all. The idea that words can be used with indifference as to the consequence is so wrong it is hard to imagine anyone defending it.
The question is, in that case, why is the IEA adopting this position? The newsletter implies that the comment is about their right to continue to promote an anti-migrant agenda. They dislike it being suggested that this might promote racial hatred, even though the evidence that it does appears very clear. But could it be more sinister than that? I genuinely don't know; it is not clear. But in themselves, those sinister sentences have to be highlighted. Rarely have I read something so profoundly wrong at a moral level.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Good Lord!
Whatever next?
This is nothing but the avoidance of accountability. It is the re-writing – once again – of human history and how we work as a society.
Under this ‘rubric’ then, there is technically no such thing as leadership or the arts since these things have no effect on us? There is no such thing as politics. There was no such thing as a Nurnberg Rally here and there under Hitler. Nazism was just a spontaneous event in history eh?
It is hyper-individualisation again – all these people now and throughout history just did it of their own volition. It was just a coincidence then, that when Trump called the last U.S. election ‘stolen’ that a whole load of people invaded Capitol Hill and trashed it? All those people just happened to be there at the same time by accident.
Imagine if it had been the socialist worker’s party rioting on our streets this summer? I wonder what the sentiment from the IEA would be about that?
There we go again then – the Neo-libs manufacturing their own reality – as pointed out by Mirowski.
My view is that he should be interviewed by the Met and put straight about a few things. Maybe MI6 should give him a visit? Or is he already a member?
But to Mr Harrison, all I can say is this: Bollocks!
Why do we tolerate this nonsense Richard?
Well said. They clearly don’t believe what they’re saying, otherwise why would they exist as a body, knowing that nothing they ever said would influence anyone. As you clearly illustrated, words have consequence, in some cases profound ones and horrific ones.
The suggestion is certainly that Trumps supporters will try to whip up an insurrection were he to lose the Presidential Election this year.
So the IEA says one thing while its funders believe very differently
“Words cannot injure or compel a person to hate or riot”
Bullshit!!!!
See 6 January 2021 Washington DC insurrection and riot!
It would seem that Mr. Griffiths has never read (or chooses to ignore) any texts from the world’s major religions…
Even in the US, with its constitution right to free speech under the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”), the Supreme Court accepts that the right is not absolute and unconstrained. In the famous words, there is no right to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre.
Is the IEA really so ideologically blind that it and its staff will support those who would incite hatred? They are defenders of antisemitism and islamophobia? Is this the sort of thing its donors support?
I wish I could answer that question
So, if words cannot ‘incite’ harm, would Harrison Griffiths kindly explain the relationship of Nazism’s antisemitism, Kristallnacht and the gas chambers?
Reverend:
You have misrepresented HG.
From the article: “There are justifiable limitations on speech, particularly efforts to incite imminent violent action.”
If HG believed that he could not promote the conclusion he reached that I quoted. So at best his argument is internally inconsistent. Alternatively, he knows his conclusion is wrong and he is promoting it anyway.
And you are banned for supporting his promotion of hate speech as a legitimate activity.
There is a massive irony in you posting this, given your history of abusing anyone that disagrees with your as ‘far right’ and deliberately mis-representing what those on the right of centre actually believe.
There is no irony at all
I oppose ideas that are intended to abuse and bar those who seek to promote them
Do you have a problem with that?
Why?
Your blog appears to be focussed on abusing those that don’t agree with you, and making misleading claims about anyone that doesn’t share your political views.
The fact that you can’t recognise this behaviour in yourself is unsurprising, but independent scrutiny of your blog history will certainly see the abusive terms you commonly use to describe people who don’t agree with you – Tories, Jews, Reform, New Labour etc.
Words are important.
I have never disagreed with Tories, Reform, and New Labour, per se. I disagree with what they do that harms people in their own self-interests or that of their sponsors. Are you saying I shouldn’t?
I have never argued with Jews, per se, ever. There is not a hint of anti-Semitism in me. I have an issue with a fascist, genocidal govermment in Israel. Are you saying you don’t?
I ban those who promote hate. Are you saying I shouldn’t?
I try to offer solutions based on hope for all. Are you saying I shouldn’t?
Words are impirtant. Yours are hate filled. Mine aren’t. That’s what divides us.
The perpetual defence of the right – we are misrepresented. But you’re not. As is evidenced in the hateful comments in your chosen press, online sites, numerous books, and politicians statements. Not to mention the comments made, in their hundreds supporting anti immigrant, anti welfare, anti, well anybody who isn’t white, right wing, and uptight, tbh, on all the aboves websites.
Misrepresentation, doesn’t mean, as the right believes (strongly) it does, simply not agreeing with you.
And that, is the reality behind the whole ‘free speech is being restricted’ agenda.
By people’s words and actions we can infer the kind of person that they are. To be right wing is neither a moral or ethical position to be in, and that is a matter of fact, since being right wing means having a particular set of attitudes towards others that is inconsistent with a common good, and so harmful to others. These are simply facts of the matter. If you find these statements insulting, you are free to change your attitudes and beliefs to ones that are ethical and moral, otherwise accept that being right wing means that, to paraphrase David Mitchell in a sketch about the Nazis, you are one of the baddies. And that is a fact.
Speech is a strong form of contact, with self and others, which is of profound power over the attitudes, thinking and behaviour of ourselves and others. It can and does compel and persuade.
The sentence given by a judge.is an example of its power to compel.
Thus the premise of this argument is flawed and so the argument falls.
There’s been quite a few folk tweeting that those sentenced for hateful comments shouldn’t go to jail because what they posted on twitter was ‘just words’. They seem genuinely perplexed that hateful words used to incite violence towards others results in a sentence of several years.
Yet they themselves use language, to convey their thoughts, feelings and ideas to others about the matter, but strangely set no store by it.
Perhaps they think we should just gesture, point and grunt at each other à la the film 1 Million Years BC!
Are we to assume then, if the IEA thinks words are so unimportant and sterile, its members will not be trolling websites, such as this one, with angry, hateful worded replies to the subject matter written and spoken?
A troll has suggested I am seriously mentally ill here this morning
I guess they think such words have no impact
I’m not, and I am assued by others I am not, so the only reason for those words was to inflict harm
Proof positive. Thank you.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) describe “What is emotional abuse?” and includes:
❌humiliating or constantly criticising a child
❌threatening, shouting at a child or calling them names
❌making the child the subject of jokes, or using sarcasm to hurt a child
❌blaming and scapegoating
❌persistently ignoring them
Yes, words cause harm, as anyone will know who has been the subject of bullying.
Source: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/emotional-abuse/
Excellent
Thank you
As George Montbiot and others have shown, there are global networks dedicated to fomenting ultra right ideas – entirely unchallneged by BBC as to who funds them – endlessly and falsely cited as ‘think tanks’ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/06/rishi-sunak-javier-milei-donald-trump-atlas-network.
As you say Richard, it is really funny – that a ‘communications’ person would say communications dont work!
But how are we going to call to account the chief inciters – the dogwhistlers like Sunak, Braverman, Badenoch, Anderson, Fararge. Shoudnt the minsterial code preclude direct or indirect incitement by reason of their elevated position?
,
Read the Road from Mont Pelerin
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674088344
Where we are is very deliberate, as is the calling out of those you name
And the abse I get for saying so
WHat do we do? We keep offering the truth
The ‘truth’?
What do Hamas support?
You’ve certainly defended them in the past.
I have always condemned Hamas’ actions on 7/10/23 and cannot think why esle I have mentioned them
So, more lies
words lead to actions.
This is as true now as it ever was
Jacob Bronowski at Auschwitz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltjI3BXKBgY
If words dont matter why did the government set up a Nudge Unit?
Peter Geoghegan’s book “Democracy for Sale” is the go-to on murky funded ‘think tanks’ (really secret lobbying outfits). George Monbiot is brilliant at unmasking this as well – he had a heated argument with an IEA representative who acted all the innocent – ‘why are you picking on me’ routine – on the Daily Politics last year. Also, James O’Brien’s book “How they Broke Britain” is a brilliant catalogue of horrors documenting threads (much of it from IEA and spin-offs such as the ‘Taxpayers Alliance’ that Matthew Elliott ran) that led to the utter mess the country is in now.
You would think that the IEA being the champions of ‘freedom’ and ‘free markets’ would also apply that to championing a positive and pro immigration – even open borders/free movement – stance! But no, we have ‘Thatchersim in one country’. Same old, same old.