This is an idea that is more representative of Democrats, Communists, Nazis and other totalitarian groups.
I don’t agree with many of his statements, but censorship? I think not!
If we censor him, who’s next?
No thanks.
>>I don’t agree with many of his statements, but censorship? I think not!
I agree. But as I’ve said before, it’s not censorship to not invite a guy to a debate. Mandating a loudspeaker and mandating free speech rights are totally unrelated things. An appeal to censorship by contrast would be if the petition said: “We the undersigned call for Paul’s opinions to be silenced and the expression of them to be forbidden.” You’ll notice it doesn’t say anything remotely like this.
If not inviting a representative of every conceivable opinion to a debate no matter how obscene, purposeless or unrepresentative, constituted censorship, every debate thus far staged in history was censored. This is plainly not the case.