{"id":16264,"date":"2016-01-21T14:27:06","date_gmt":"2016-01-21T19:27:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=16264"},"modified":"2016-01-21T14:27:06","modified_gmt":"2016-01-21T19:27:06","slug":"the-us-frequently-bans-visitors-on-the-basis-of-speech-and-opinions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peterlevine.ws\/?p=16264","title":{"rendered":"the US frequently bans visitors on the basis of speech and opinions"},"content":{"rendered":"

I think the British Parliament\u00a0made the right decision when it\u00a0voted not to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK. During the debate, MPs had the opportunity to\u00a0call him–and I quote–“poisonous,” “a buffoon,” “crazy,” “wrong,” “stupid,” and a “wazzock.” (The Urban Dictionary suggests, as an\u00a0example of that last term, “You great useless spawny-eyed parrot-faced wazzock.”)<\/p>\n

It’s almost never smart to respond to odious\u00a0speech by keeping it out. It’s almost always better to respond with confident, reasonable, yet forceful speech on the opposite side.<\/p>\n

That said, the British are\u00a0certainly not the only ones to consider banning people on the basis of speech. Indeed, they have a long, if not spotless, record of accepting radicals and subversives of all stripes; Karl Marx is buried in Highgate Cemetery. And we–meaning the executive branch of our federal government–have a long tradition of barring people because of their speech. E.g.,<\/p>\n