>"Silence isn't golden when it comes to free speech
This trend to silence opposing views and then cluster around shared beliefs is not only worrying, it may ultimately weaken our own understanding of an issue."

I agree totally.

The blocking of debate by the Left that the Left doesn't approve of is a really serious issue. here's some examples:

Blocking the establishment of the Australian Concensus Centre in the UWA business School because it was to be set up by Bjorn Lomborg (whom the Left hate)

Un Skeptical Science blocking and deleting comments by climate rationalists

ABC, Fairfax media and many other Left leaning media outlets blocking and censoring much that is not approved by the Left and acting as propaganda agents for the Left

Universities encouraging hate preachers to come to Australia and preach their hate on the basis it is freedom of speech.

Then blocking people from coming and waning Australian's us of the - e.g. Geert Wilders

Branding climate rationalists and sceptics as ":Deniers" of the Left's religiouss belief in "Catastrophic Climate Change"

The Left hate free speech (except of course to spread their Marxist propoganda)

There's no point me wasting more time on this. Others can provide better examples

What an excellent and very timely article!

>To wit: disagreement with my personal moral and political persuasions
> (and those, presumably, of most people I know) should be illegal. No
>debate to see here, folks; all other viewpoints have been defined off
>the cliff-edge as bigoted, small-minded, and dangerous.

The only problem is that people who believe this will never, ever admit it.

The UWA 'affair is perhaps the most agregious recent example of the VERRY issue you discuss here. I am truly appalled at this event and consider a democratic government, founded on the principle of free speech has every justification to withhold all taxpayer funds from the institution in question. Can an 'institution' be 'bigoted'? The UWA is truly a bigoted organisation.

There still should be boundaries on what people can say, because some things just aren't relevant. But to enter a comment for debate, on issues pertinent to a healthy society in which we all live, should be open. We don't have to agree, but wisdom cannot not be ignored.

Longy whilst I agree in principle with your point I don't agree in application. When we allow government or others to decide what is relevant or allowed in speech it all to readily morphs into the blocking of contrary views.

It's not a clear cut issue though, encouraging others to violence is in my view little different to doing the violence. Spreading lies about another to hurt them is a form of violence but it also gives a foothold to those who would censor to protect their own views.

One of the points those who would shut down opposing views by force is that sometimes the shoe is on the other foot and it's their own views that may be the ones censored.

R0bert