the corner office

I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech. So I think Nick Griffin has a right to spout racist BS if he wants to. Does that mean he has a right to go onto the BBC and spout his BS on public broadcasts? That's not the same thing. I think it's debatable whether the BBC has a moral duty to give him air time; even though it's a public broadcaster, I think it comes down to how the BBC interprets its own policies or charters.

On a practical level though, it seems clear to me that allowing Griffin onto Question Time was the sensible option. The real problem isn't about Griffin on the BBC, it's that Griffin is an elected politician and lots of Brits voted for him. He and his ilk are by their nature prone towards paranoia and persecution complexes, and when the 'establishment' bends rules to silence them, it just reinforces their assertions that they're being persecuted. I think it works better for Griffin's message to be exposed to the world, to be challenged and exposed in debates, and shown for the BS it is.

On another level, I'm not sure what's more dangerous - a racist on the telly or a bunch of activists trying to silence people whose views they don't like. Griffin's views may be odious, but the views of those who believe he shouldn't be allowed to speak, who believe that the rest of the world should be denied the opportunity to hear him and make up their own minds, aren't much better. Neither Griffin nor the activists seem to have much respect for the freedoms of others.