On letting the unspeakable be spoken

There is something initially joyous in hearing that the British government has banned some of America's right-wing culture warriors from entering the country because they may encourage hate. A full list is available from The Washington Post but it includes Michael Savage, a conservative radio host who has made controversial remarks about immigrants and Muslims, and the vociferously anti-gay Rev. Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper.

But after a quick burst of "and a jolly good thing too" a true liberal should have pause for thought. As horrid and asinine as some of the beliefs these people hold might seem, is that a good enough reason to ban them? It is not as easy for some of us as we might wish it to be. Who decides what is appropriate speech in a democracy? How can garbage be shown up for what it is if it is not allowed an airing? And when does garbage change to something altogether more reasonable that a given government might not like?

A similar dilemma arose in the 1970s when the very nasty, quasi-fascist National Front held marches and rallies in Britain. A lot of people on the left wanted them banned. But the government let the NF go ahead. The solution was found in a series of strong counter demonstrations that sought to show up the NF for what it was.

Perhaps the reasonable course of action in Britain would be to let the likes of Savage et al in to talk (although there is no reason to believe they want to) but to make sure that every unpalatable utterance from them is met with the protest and derision it deserves.