It doesn’t matter what level of democracy you’re talking about, one thing that’s constant is respect by the participants for the right of others to express a contrary view.
Let’s remind ourselves of Voltaire’s freedom of speech declaration: I violently disagree with you but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.
As a newspaper editor of many years it has intrigued me how a small percentage of people who get involved in public affairs think they can get away with breaking the rules.
They just don’t seem to get it that their personal attacks on opponents will not get to see the light of day, except at the hands of a reckless or inexperienced publisher.
I cringe when I see such examples in other media outlets because it gives the culprits not just an airing of their silly personal attacks but encouragement to try it elsewhere.
They won’t succeed there, but they will try to get their slanders in anyway. Same goes for the thick headed and the fringe political groups.
But I disagree that we should consider banning some views, because in a twisted kind of way these idiots will win.
No, best to consider their submissions the same way as any other and judge them on their merit.
If their comments are fair, constructive, sensible and civilised and not defamatory they may then be considered for public consumption.
If they are personal attacks based on innuendo and malice, well, they have two chances of being published: Buckley’s and none.
Which is a shame, because I am sure most of them, if they tried, could make a contribution to any debate on any issue across the south west region, from Macarthur to Liverpool and Fairfield.
Why play the man when you can play the ball, which gives you a better chance of victory.
Victory being persuading others that your view has substance while those who disagree with you are basically without merit.
Democracy is about resolving problems by calmly discussing them, not about yelling at each other.
