 The Free Speech Union was set up by Toby Young to defend people expressing controversial views from professional or reputational damage. They've been critiqued as an outfit only interested in defending people's right to be racist or homophobic. However, a decision by the International Olympic Committee to ban athletes from taking the knee in solidarity with Black Lives Matter gave the organization an opportunity to show they weren't just rank opportunists looking to only defend bigotry. So would the Free Speech Union defend the right to express a political opinion they didn't agree with? We found out when their Deputy Director Emma Webb spoke to Talk Radio. The decision by the International Olympic Committee to ban this is consistent as you mentioned already with rule 50 and so I think it's the right decision and actually groups like the Football Association should probably follow suit because as you've pointed out this is a highly politicized organization and it's not exactly a tenable position to suggest that this is simply a gesture of anti-racism when it's so closely associated with what is obviously a far-left political movement. Yeah, absolutely. Which again it's just this goes over old ground I guess Emma, but I mean it staggers me the free pass some of these people have been given into the highest of our governments and institutions around the world. Perhaps because of the name of the organization that you know people start to discombobulate and think well I better respond to that or you know I better be open to the ideas of these people because you know after all they're called Black Lives Matter. I mean that sounds like something very worthy that we should all be signed up to. Yeah, it's excellent branding because superb. If you work in PR it doesn't get any better than that really. Exactly and you know as you say we've been over this ground time and time again because no one's going to disagree with the fact that Black Lives Matter and anybody who cares about equality or comes from a sort of civil rights perspective Martin Luther King style approach to these sorts of things wouldn't find anything objectionable in that but it isn't just purely about racism. You couldn't make it up they're called the Free Speech Union you know they say look we defend people's right to say controversial things even if it's offensive even if it's bigoted. Now someone wants to kneel down to speak out against racism by cops against Black people and suddenly no no no not only at the IOC the International Olympic Committee right to ban taking the knee the FA should do it too. Football players should be banned from taking the knee at the start of matches. I mean these people are ridiculous. Free speech for people I agree with I mean that's not how it works it's like you know innocent until proven guilty if I think you're innocent. I mean the whole point of the rule of law is that it's a universalizable category. You can't just think the law applies to the people that you like. You can't just have a certain moral code to people you already agree with right. Christ I mean these are meant to be adults Michael. This Free Speech Union has been indulged left right and censored by our a pathetic a scurrilous media when like you said there's just these obvious and absurd inconsistencies in what they say. You know I think Michael actually you know Rosa Luxemburg said that best. Freedom is freedom to disagree. You know freedom only exists in a society where there are people that are free to dissent with what you're with what you're saying so I mean yeah I mean this is we'd say you it literally couldn't be further from the truth this person is defending freedom of speech. I mean there's very millennial literally in that it couldn't be further from the truth. They are not defending free speech. They're just defending people that they agree with. Not the same thing. Almost as striking as what she was saying was how easy a ride she got from the radio host who wasn't saying whoa whoa whoa wait a minute wait a minute you're from the Free Speech Union. I thought you were coming on here to argue that this should be allowed and it was in a front that the IOC were banning taking the knee. Ian Collins just like yeah I know Black Lives Matter are fairly controversial aren't they? As I say he doesn't appear to push her back I'm at all on this contradiction but regardless she does offer one defence of the position one defence of the position that people shouldn't be able to take the knee at the Olympics. Let's take a look. When the Olympic Committee International Olympic Committee reviewed this rule and whether or not it should be applied to taking the knee they took a sort of survey of the sports people taking part and found that the majority of people were supportive of the decision to uphold the rule and would have been supportive of a ban of it. So I think there's an increasing consensus within sport that taking the knee is divisive and doesn't really have very much to do with actually kicking racism out of sport. So there's just saying it's right that it's banned because it's unpopular. The whole point of believing in free speech is that your ability to say something shouldn't be based on whether the idea is popular. That's the whole point. The whole ideology behind free speech being you know an important thing is that you can challenge dominant ideologies that you can challenge what people consider to be common sense and that's how you make progress. I mean supposed to be the whole point right and then she's saying oh well if the majority against it you shouldn't be able to say it. Now this isn't just you know the traditional JS mill liberal idea of free speech I'm drawing from because I'm also drawing here from their own website so in the statement of values of the free speech union they write the free speech union believes that if society doesn't uphold the right to express controversial eccentric heretical provocative or unwelcome opinions then it doesn't uphold free speech but then you've got their deputy director who goes on talk radio and says oh no look these ideas were unpopular the majority of people were happy with them being banned therefore we should ban them right. She should read the statement of values of the own organisation that she's presumably employed by. Think about this Tommy Smith 1968 you have the famous Black Pass salute at the 1968 Olympics does she think that that was bad that that was actually egregious that he should have been punished for that in 1968 when you've got you know racial segregation anti-miscegenation so you know Black people and white people couldn't get married in certain states in the US until the mid-1960s does she think he was in the wrong to do that to highlight the Black civil rights struggle in the United States? I presume not I presume she was saying no things are better therefore actually protest was legitimate then but not now I mean that seems so arbitrary and by the way that what you say Michael that wasn't popular back then more than 50 years ago protest generally isn't popular you know the idea that we'll only defend the free speech of people who say mainstream things but you're not going to be very busy are you when we saw this earlier as well the Jewish Chronicle they said how can you call somebody far right if they've got mainstream views well you know it was mainstream to believe in slavery 200 years ago it was mainstream to think women shouldn't have the vote at the start of the 20th century you know a couple of thousand years ago it was mainstream to think that cannibalism is okay you know people move on because and what's the mechanism for that you have dissenting views people engage with those often not positively but eventually there's some change they use those reflecting their own behavior and then they say actually this is right this is the correct way of doing things and that's that's the that's the social argument it's a social good to have freedom of speech even if you don't necessarily agree with this argument or that argument because a society it challenges us and we can move from a position of ignorance to one of you know illumination enlightenment I don't think she even knows what the hell she's talking about Michael I think this lady just wants an excuse to to bash the left and free speech and freedom of expression is not a left it shouldn't be a left right thing you know there are many people on the right who genuinely believe in it and there are many people on the left who genuinely believe in it but it's become this like weird cultural cultural I mean it doesn't it doesn't mean anything you know Voltaire has talked about it you know Rosa Luxemburgs talked about it Jess Mill talked about it you're looking at really disparate ideological traditions who said freedom of speech is really important anyway maybe we shouldn't you know maybe Michael maybe just maybe the free speech union aren't good faith actors have you thought about that