1/ In principle, I agree there's an obvious distinction between publishing something and agreeing with it. After all, on a much smaller scale, I sometimes publish blog posts I disagree with. However, I think there broader principles at stake if an article normalises neo-Nazis.
2/ Let's be clear about what we're dealing with. Here are senior folks from the political party which a Spectator columnist expressed sympathy for.
I don't like calling people neo-Nazis, but if the swastikas and salutes fit...
I don't like calling people neo-Nazis, but if the swastikas and salutes fit...
3/ All screenshots credit to @sturdyAlex who wrote the definitive response to that Spectator column here: byline.com/column/11/arti…
4/ Mr Neil says that he has no sympathy for the neo-Nazis, and I believe him. But I think it's legitimate to question the judgement of publishing articles sympathetic to these folks.
5/ Why? Because, as @sturdyAlex points out, publishing articles sympathetic to these folks in an establishment magazine like the Spectator will help to normalise their extremism and violence.
6/ It's fair for Mr Neil to say that @OwenJones84 misspoke in saying the Spectator "supports" the neo-Nazis. But in practice there's little difference between supporting them and publishing an article by a sympathetic columnist. Either way, the effect is to normalise them.
7/ Finally, Mr Neil objected to my saying that he was "responsible" for publishing the piece. But I wasn't making a legal point. There's also moral responsibility. If I were the chair of an outfit that published a defence of people (or shorts) like these, I would resign. /
