From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   "Emergencies have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of   
   individual liberty have eroded."   
      
      
   Most Brits have looked upon recent riots with abject horror. This is not   
   just because of the associated damage or the shock in a country where   
   such disorder is thankfully rare. It’s attracted particular concern   
   because they appear to have been driven by forces of ethnic hatred.   
      
   As my colleague Matthew Lesh pointed out on last week’s IEA Podcast, it   
   seems as though every different ideological camp has tried to impose its   
   narrative about why the country is in a bad state onto the riots. Those   
   on the right have emphasised integration and immigration issues, while   
   those on the left have spoken about dangerous speech, particularly on   
   social media, driving the violence. This latter narrative has led to   
   calls for yet more censorship in the UK.   
      
   There are justifiable limitations on speech, particularly efforts to   
   incite imminent violent action. But we are now seeing an expectation   
   that saying something merely offensive or hateful should be removed and   
   that the state should be involved in deciding what is true and false. In   
   his City AM column this week, Matthew surgically identified the critical   
   flaw in this logic:   
      
   “It presumes that the primary reason for the riots was violence ‘stirred   
   up’ by right-wing politicians and other malicious figures. It treats   
   people not as individuals, but rather, as empty vessels ready to be   
   manipulated by dark forces.”   
      
   Cont.   
      
   https://insider.iea.org.uk/p/speech-is-not-violence   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)