xD.

On “left” and “right”: I’ve noticed that people on the political right never are that bad as long as they fully accept a policy of freedom of speech. My enemies are almost always the censors and the thought police — an interesting bunch of people including Howard Davies, the pope, Kim Jong-Il, and Tony Blair.

The freedom to say bugger off is important, but it’s included in freedom of access to information.
A freedom necessarily means the right or ability not to do a thing; freedom of speech does not mean that you have to speak, in general or politically, all the time or at all, while freedom of access to information does not mean you have to inform yourself; you can choose to ignore someone if you want.

‘Left’ and ‘right’ are almost meaningless terms. Anarchists of various flavours are called both ‘left’ and ‘right’; Nazism is called far-right, Stalin was far-left, and they were pretty similar.

If we accept the terms you’re using, your analysis is a gross oversimplification. I probably count as ‘the left’, and I’ve said that the BNP should not be gagged. Ditto Skuds. Ditto the Government, which is (at least officially)

I do not deny for a moment that some people on the extremes of political thought would deny freedom of speech, but if you are using a term like ‘left’ to lump me with Stalin or Gordon Brown with Mao, I would suggest that it has almost no analytical usefulness whatsoever.

I have not said that the Oxford Union should not have been able to invite Griffin and Irving; I said that it was a bad idea presented on false premises.

The dilemma of the BNP brings left and right closer on this issue. Both detest the BNP but the right says they have to be allowed to speak - just don’t buy a ticket to one of their meetings if it’s a problem.

The left says, “Gag them.”