Why the idea of freedom of speech for everyone is flawed

This is what pro-white Youtube vlogger Thomas Baden-Riess has to say about it:

My comments:

To me freedom of speech is really about the right of citizens to criticize a tyrannical government, or that’s the essence of it. Just like the right to bear arms is first and foremost about the people being able to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. It’s not about “giving everyone a voice”.

To elaborate I once more go back to that Tommy Robinson’s free speech rally where one of the organizers had wanted to have a radical muslim (known from Youtube and the Speakers Corner) give a speech there. That’s not just stupid, that’s fucking retarded. And these kind of situations reveal how flawed the “freedom of speech for everyone” concept is, or how people misunderstand the essence of freedom of speech. I’m not saying they’re the only subversive group, but radical muslims are hostile invaders who are working to establish a tyrannical political system in Europe, not people who oppose a tyrannical government, whereas European nationalists are dissidents opposing a tyrannical supernational government (the EU). The concept of freedom of speech wasn’t created for people like these radical muslims, it was created for people like the nationalists of this day and age.

Yes, freedom of speech sounds nice on paper, but when you really think it through you notice it doesn’t work.

Lately a lot of Finnish nationalists and anti-immigration activists have been prosecuted for “hate speech” so there’s a lot of talk about “freedom of speech”, and these nationalists themselves are emphasizing the right for EVERYONE to express their opinions. That would then include muslims, too. So when I pondered whether muslims should be allowed to freely spread their propaganda in Finland, and the answer was obviously no, I realized how ridiculous the concept of all-inclusive freedom of speech is.

The situation we now have in Finland is a perfect example of what the idea of freedom of speech is really about – the right of the people to criticize their rulers. And only when there already is a tyrannical government that’s trying to silence dissenting voices, i.e., suppressing the “freedom of speech”, does the discussion about “freedom of speech” become relevant. Because that’s what it’s indeed all about.

Advertisements