Libertarians who don't want free speech

Do you like free speech? I like free speech. Well, I would if it were free. I tend to take advantage of it as and when it comes along at the moment. Like a good day's sunshine in the bleak English North. Or a pair of pocket aces in a Texas Hold' Em tourney.

We're all human, and as such, we are all imperfect. Yet despite this unalterable fact of life, it would be nice if, every now and then, people could at least try and remain consistent with their avowed principles.

Most of the time, people tend to get away with an awful lot without anyone noticing. I mean, if politicians can happily bankrupt the country and for no-one to really notice until it's all too late, imagine what else people can manipulate and shove under the living room rug?

Take the Libertarian blogging scene for example. We're a growing bunch. The new anti-establishment. The biggest show in town, in terms of the internet led revolt against the government and the state in general. People have 'had enough', and if they're not becoming libertarian bloggers, they read them.

Boaty & D are libertarian bloggers, though with a difference. We're not like the rest.

You see, like pretty much anything else in history, when the new kids in town start to gather momentum and support, little corrupted pockets of data start to infect the old DNA. Call it a 'short circuit' if you will.

The Emperor will wear his new clothes, and step out onto the balcony to tell the people that a new dawn has come, and that the old tat is gone and everything will be better from now on - if only you support my gang.

Next thing you know, the Emperor is burning and raping and looting just as bad as the last guy. I guess a modern day equivalent to this metaphor would be Blair. So the question is, what makes libertarians think they are so much more moral and better than the current leaders of the country? Do we really think we have all the answers and that the us versus them comes down to a case of the good versus the bad?

This is where we are different here at Boatang and Demetriou - we question everything and everyone. We analyse things properly and we don't bend to an agenda. We are fair and consistent. We know there is no right or wrong answer to most things, and there are no perfect people.

If you cut away the various policies and ideas bounced around by libertarians, there's one core value that rides high above all else - freedom of expression.

So you can picture my disgust and amazement when, a few months back, I found myself banned from a 'libertarian' blog, by a so-called 'libertarian', who happens to be a member of the LPUK. My offence was to criticise a leading blogger, which caused her a degree of annoyance. The 'libertarian' blogger who banned me informed me that the criticised party was someone she 'supports totally'. Following from her strong words of indignation and bumptious ridicule, I posted back on her blog to seek clarity over the matter.

It was then that I realised that I was cut off. No more could I post there. The blogger's supporters, naturally, piled in to stick the boot in. When this issue was raised to other libertarian bloggers following the event, rather than words of support, we received angry words of criticism. I quickly understood that libertarian values are only important to any given individual at any given time for any given reason.

Yet, surely, freedom of speech is something that one must not only fight for, for oneself, but also defend and demand for others?

I have my suspicions as to why the unlibertarian blogger has been defended to the hilt. If my suspicions are correct, then the result is that libertarian blog land stinks to high heaven of hypocrisy and double standards.

Two main retorts have been raised against Mr B and I, since we began our complaint against the unlibertarian blogger:

• Her Site, Her Rules.

• Why are you telling her what she can do on her own site?

As I'm sure reasonable minded readers will appreciate, these positions hold no logic. Not if proper, real free speech is a value to be defended.

What are we talking about here? The privatisation of free speech? It's OK to shut someone up, so long as you own the domain within which discussion is taking place? On this logic, free speech is only acceptable on common land, or land owned by 'the people'.

Leave internet based forums alone for a moment (although I could certain prove my point amply within the parameters of a net based debate). What would happen if owners of bars, pubs and cafes started introducing bans on freedom of expression. Say for example, a landlord of a pub who decided to ban people from talking about politics? Or a bar owner who decided to bar anyone caught talking about sex?

"Oh, sorry, my bad, didn't they tell you? Hoess's camp, Hoess's rules."

Under my opponent's logic, this would be fine. Their pubs, their rules. If you don't like it, do that stuff in your own pub.

Really? Sounds iffy. But let's take it further. What if BT, or Virgin, or any other private telecommunications company, decided to tap your calls and your broadband and cut you off if they felt you were doing or saying something they didn't like (or that their business allies didn't like)?

Under my opponent's logic, this would be just swell. Surely? Those companies own the shit, it's their service, their rules.

You may be asking yourself this: 'well if you want to criticise someone, go and do it on your opponent's / your own site.' This is a poor argument. Debate and discussion can spring up in all manner of places at any given time. The libertarian stance on free speech is not to ring fence it, privatise it or direct where and when it might happen. The libertarian stance is to embrace free speech as and where it is expressed.

If a contributor came here, and made a harsh comment about someone I liked, why on earth would I think it acceptable to ban them? Why? How could I do that, and maintain any form of reputation as a libertarian?

To ban someone from exercising free speech is the ultimate sign of an authoritarian. Fine, do it if you must, but just realise this - you're not a libertarian. Fact. That libertarians come running to her rescue every time, almost panicking in an effort to defend her and slag us off, speaks volumes of just what we are dealing with here. People bereft of true principles. People bereft of consistency, logic and true libertarian ideals. People who value connections and keeping the country club ticking over unhindered.

This brings me to the second attack levied by one critic of ours at the moment: why are you telling her what to do?

Telling? Telling? What's this telling business? Who are we telling to do what? We haven't told anyone to do or not do anything. We simply assert this: ban someone for dissent, and you're no libertarian. It's really that simple. Support the person who initiated the ban, and expect to come under scrutiny and attack.

I've yet to read one solitary point of query over the blog owner's actions. A single fucking point. Nada. So either she is supported, or no-one cares. Both are equal crimes in my book. Feel free to commit them, just don't expect any degree of respect from us or any reasonable minded observer to proceedings. And don't expect to be considered as a proper libertarian.

"What are you doing with that man? Leave him alone?" "Don't tell him what to do! Who do you think you are, telling him what to do? We own this land. Our land, our rules."

So it's an interesting debate isn't it? And whether you agree with us or not, the concept of free speech and where and when it is acceptable appears to change, for some people, depending on whether it is exercised in private space.

I'm sure, though, that if you take this small example of a blog row and you expanded the injury Mr Boatang and I have endured into something far bigger (yet equally consistent in principle), then the result would be, to put it mildly, sinister.

Adios.

"Weeellll. What can I say? His country. His rules...
...I hope he links to my blog..."