It’s not simply a matter of strong disagreement; they’re fascists. I think parties openly organising for fascism should be banned. I think parties openly stirring up racial hatred should be banned. Yes, I disagree with them, but that’s not why I’m suggesting they should be banned - otherwise we’d have to ban the Lib Dems, Greens, Respect etc as well.

Having said that, I’ll let you ban the BNP/National Front/Tories/UKIP if I can ban parties with a statist agenda as statism really deeply offends and upsets me - probably as much as the BNP upset you.

Fair deal?

P.S. Shouldn’t you try to rehabilitate “fascists” (referral order/ASBO anyone?) rather than just punish them?

If the referenda were advertised as binding there would be little voice. But the paradigm is a little odd. Do you think we should have regular referendums as a kind of state equivalent of MORI?

The scenario I described appears to be almost exactly the gameplan of the supporters of the “EU Constitution”. Their response to having some countries decide not to ratify that document is to wait a couple of years, then try again. It is particularly odious and anti-democratic, because signing up to the EU Constitution is a more or less irreversible process. Supporters of the EU Constitution only have to succeed in getting support once, whereas its opponents have to win every time the subject comes up.

This is (one reason) why I consider some form of supermajority to be far more appropriate than a simple majority in such cases.

http://letsbesensible.blogspot.com/2005/02/nick-griffin-and-freedom-of-speech.html

Of course, what you also do in the process is place a defined limit on Parliament’s sovereignty, but again that an egg I’ll happily see broken in return for a decent omelette.

One of the reason I pointed out the limitation on the First Amendment was simply that having spent much time in past debating on US political forums, that one used to come out all the time whenever a moderator tried to step in to curb a particularly egregious use of ‘free speech’ by a poster.

It’s a common fallacy amongst many Americans that the First Amendment applies everywhere, and boy do they whine well told that it doesn’t.

Don: I will write something on no platform, but not here - it would be too long for a comment and this is Antonia’s blog, not mine.

Sure, the radio is within its rights to interview or not to. No problem with that, even if some of us don’t like the basis on which it chooses not to

On freedom of speech, as a broader issue, and who determines what our freedoms and liberties should be, I merely expressed the view that I should rather have, however imperfect, something like

‘Her Majesty’s Government’ shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This would at least provide some protection against the present government, or any other elected government for that matter, from imposing its particular prejudices on all of us

That didn’t seem too unreasonable to wish for - albeit I realise that it is a total waste of time to have any real expectation thereof - from any UK government

I’d be interested in hearing more about your views on no platform.

I think the BNP get far more from being interviewed by a couple of student journos who aren’t as clever as they think they are (with the BNP spokesperson therefore running rings round the interviewers) than they do from being denied that opportunity. Every other political party or cause loses far more than it gains when restricted in access to the media, and the reward of being able to say ‘We are being censored’ doesn’t seem to outweigh the negatives.

The way to deal with the BNP is to ensure that their view do not go unchallenged.

However, to those of you trying to up the US Bill of Rights, can I just point out that the First Amendment starts with ‘Congress shall make no laws…’

While, in the US, the state cannot limit free expression, except in certain circumstances - e.g. the classic shouting ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theatre, and the are ‘hate speech’ laws in a number of states - the First Amendment does not apply to private entities, so the comparison in the case is a facile one.