Since 9/11 we’ve been pushed, without interruption (and by alternative and mainstream media alike), that all ideas are of equal value and of equal merit. The new champions of ‘free speech’ like to tell us that it’s an absolute, that there should be zero limitations on speech under any circumstances at all. The BBC likes to present this as a demonstration that they’re unbiased, even though they have been told repeatedly that false equivalence between an argument with validity and one without validity at all (their repeated booking of Nigel Lawson to discuss climate change) is by definition biased. Even Richard Dawkins, himself a bastion of biased arguing, acknowledges that an atheist arguing against an arch theist is a pointless exercise, as it validates an otherwise invalid position. This week ITV’s ‘Good Morning Britain’ breakfast TV show decided to allow ‘Dr’ Michael Davidson on to talk about ‘gay conversion therapy’, and it made Owen Jones furious:

And here is where the disingenuous “free speech” debate enters stage right. I share the Church of England’s view that “gay cure” abusive procedures should be banned in Britain. I am not proposing, however, that Davidson should be arrested or incarcerated for his reprehensible views. He should remain free to express them wherever he chooses: in his home, in a pub, standing on a soapbox in the street, distributing his own vile leaflets. That does not mean he should be granted a platform by broadcasters to disseminate his harmful bile. Being provided with a platform is not the same thing as free speech, however much it is falsely and disingenuously portrayed as such. If someone refuses to lend you a megaphone, they are not infringing your right to say what you believe: they are simply not offering you their own resources to amplify your views to a broader audience. The millions of people who never appear on TV or radio and are never provided with newspaper space to promote their views are not having their right to free speech undermined or attacked.

The usual suspects on left and right shouted loudly on social media about how important it was that Davidson be challenged about his repugnant views, and of course Piers Morgan did slam him so severely it made national news. But what they don’t want to look at is the damage that interviewing him on a programme watched by millions causes, be it the homophobia it emboldens in others, by seeing people like Davidson treated normally, or the self hate it legitimises with his targets. So concerned were the producers with ratings (indeed in attempting to rebuild Morgan’s TV profile) they decided to go with the old favourite – using gay people as spectator sport. I don’t believe for a moment they would have invited someone on to ask the question ‘the Final Solution – deserved?’, yet ‘debating’ a harmful topic, over which there is no controversy at all in the gay world was deemed fair game. It’s a cruel but oh-so-familiar distortion of ‘free speech’.