>Hitchens on freedom of speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2uzEM0ugY&t=0

Interesting to watch this with hindsight and see how wrong he was about Religion and why they were censorious.

Could you expound on what you mean? I must have missed it.

He made the point that religious organisations tried to restrict freedom of speech in order to silence activist groups they didn't agree with (which at the time was true), but also suggested a causal relationship between the fact that they held "primitive" beliefs and their willingness to censor.

If you look at how society has evolved over the last 15 years, the opposite has come true. Activists are successfully limiting speech they find offensive through legislation and intimidation, and one of the strongest defenders of "full" freedom of speech has now become the religious far-right.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the notion of "full" freedom of speech (which we don't actually have in Australia; only an implied right to freedom of political communication to the extent that is necessary to keep democracy running), but you can't deny that religion is no longer the enemy of free speech.

Actually I think I could deny it, because the issue is more complex than a boolean. While yes, certain religions have increased in their freedom of speech rhetoric, some of them still have death penalties for things like blasphemy (which in some cases includes cartoon drawings, apparently), and that hasn't really changed.

There is little consistency of belief across the political spectrum. This breeds hypocrisy and mistrust which fuels further mistrust and hypocrisy. It’s just general cultural ugliness all the way down.