This is an adjunct of the freedom of speech issue that, as I've said elsewhere on the board recently, i find it very difficult to find a solid position on.
See, i agree completely with opposing views.
I agree with Geoffrey that
But then, we also know that advertising and lobbying advance a cause. The more money a corporation or industry puts into advertising and lobbying, the greater their position of power. So I see little difference in the people who do action against E-On's power stations and those who picket E-On's graduate recruitment stalls.
The BNP are getting a leaflet shoved through every letterbox in the country. That's more than enough. Anything that wastes their resources and prevents a growth in their power is all to the good.
I don't see the clear distinction between words and deeds, and between violent and non-violent deeds that some others appear to. They are all actions that create a social atmosphere, they all persuade and/or intimidate.
I realise the complete contradiction in what I've said. If anyone can help me to a more consistent position, I'm all ears.
In the meantime, Geoffrey, if you're so confident in their right to freedom of speech and stuff, let me tell you about what used to happen in Leeds in the early 90s.
Racists would turn up to Leeds United home games and sell their papers. Racial abuse and intimidation around the ground increased dramatically. Eventually a large group of anti-fascists turned up en masse, took the papers off the racists and told them in no uncertain terms to go away and not come back. They were thanked by Asian shopkeepers in the area who were able to reopen on match days.
The anti-fascists were limiting freedom of speech, and it was, after all, only words. Should they have allowed the newspapers to carry on being sold?
