I sent the following to an acquaintance who campaigned to reverse the Leeds Uni Union ban on the BNP campaigning on campus, on the basis of ‘free speech’. It seems kind of appropriate.
“1 – The ‘right to free speech’ only means that you will not be persecuted by the state for espousing your opinion. It doesn’t mean anyone has to listen to or put up with your shit.
2 – The flip side of a right is a responsibility. You have a right to say what you want, but you also have a responsibility to accept the consequences of what you say. That means you need to deal with whatever comes back at you as a response to you exercising your right – as long as those come-backs are legal and above board, you have no reason to bitch about it.
3 – Your right doesn’t supercede anyone else’s right. If you shout your opinion and someone shouts you down louder, that’s your problem.”
To me, the odious Hopkins is starting to get her comeuppance, and as long as it’s all legal and above-board, that’s fine. Interviews I’ve read with her indicate that she’s a delusional sensationalist who writes for reaction and thinks that as long as her hate-speech adheres to the rule of grammar, then it’s all okay. Maybe she’s started finding out that it’s not, but I suspect that part hasn’t pierced her consciousness bubble yet. Soon, maybe…