Owen Jones packs in social media

[Mikeandvan]

Which avoids the issue, since, Milo for example, is not 'very nasty people' in the context of actually nastiness. On more serious speakers is Maryam Namazie very nasty? What about Germaine Greer? If the Oxford Union could find an actual racist articulate enough to make a case, why shouldn't they debate what we mostly take for granted? Going back to first principles is occasionally worth it.

The equivalent of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_King_and_Country_debate probably wouldn't happen nowadays, one side or the other would be too objectionable.

Paul

Sadly this basic point is lost on many these days. Also Julie Bindel, Peter Tatchell, all dropped from debates because their views might offend, often on grounds that they're out of date with trans issues. Maryam Namazie was shouted down by the Goldsmiths Islam society, this is a person who fights against some of the worst oppression women face these days, and you had these entitled little shits shouting her down, actually shouting 'safe space' at her!! Meaning she shouldn't be offending them. You then get the completely insane response of the Goldmiths feminist society saying they stand in unity with the Islam society because of the safe space policy!! And before anyone chips in, this is not click bate, fake news etc, it happened, in 2015, exactly like that.
You see how censorship is a slippery slope!

 

[DonQuixote99]

I think if at all possible, then yes. Free speech means ugly gets to talk. And make itself plain.

Some years ago the BNP had some minor electoral success in the UK and their leader appeared on the BBC's Question Time. Very controversial, pretty awful, now reduced to meaninglessness, at least partially by national exposure.

Paul

Again, you go back to free speech. I am not saying the fellow can't talk anywhere. I just ask if an institution can decide 'not here.'

Let's say you own a hall. Can you forbid someone to speak there, if you think they are too awful?

 

[Tony L]

Again, you go back to free speech. I am not saying the fellow can't talk anywhere. I just ask if an institution can decide 'not here.'

Let's say you own a hall. Can you forbid someone to speak there, if you think they are too awful?

That to me is the thing. As an example I own this platform and I will not allow overtly racist or homophobic posters as I am not prepared to provide such views with a platform to use let alone become associated with such repugnant beliefs myself. I view it exactly the same as a high st record store, e.g. if some EDL, BNP, UKIP or whatever arsehole walked in wanting to stick up a poster I'd tell them to f*** right off and not to come back. My space, my hospitality, my reputation, my right.

There is obviously a huge difference with student halls etc as the student committees who run these places do not own them and arguably have more of a requirement to host a more diverse set of views. With that should come a responsibility not to cause offence, though in many cases things seem to go wrong and the balance can be skewed too far in either direction. There have been some spectacularly stupid decisions made on both sides IMO.

 

[TheDecameron]

Very controversial, pretty awful, now reduced to meaninglessness

Paul

Whats this- a rare moment of self reflection?

 

[Joe Hutch]

It's a thorny issue, to be sure. My local student rag ran a piece on the subject, after the university was rated 'red' on freedom of speech issues by something called Spiked. The piece argued that whilst some decisions by the university were questionable, some of the factors leading to the 'red' rating had in fact very little to do with freedom of speech; for example the university offers first year students advice on sexual consent. As the piece puts it:

'But is it a bit far to call educating students on sexual consent a censorship issue? This isn’t an issue of telling people they cannot talk about rape, but of educating them on what constitutes rape. This is an action taken to help protect both male and female students against sexual assault.

The censorship debate is not over. In all likelihood, this article will probably be ripped to shreds by censorship tyrants who believe there is no justification for preventing free speech. And they’d be right – there isn’t. But does taking actions to promote a safe, protective environment for students constitute censorship? If it does, then perhaps we should be taking our ‘red’ censorship rating as a big thumbs up that we are doing everything right.'

 

[droodzilla]

Again, you go back to free speech. I am not saying the fellow can't talk anywhere. I just ask if an institution can decide 'not here.'

Let's say you own a hall. Can you forbid someone to speak there, if you think they are too awful?

Precisely. It's not as if these people aren't able to freely broadcast their views anyway.

My views on free speech in a nutshell:

No-one has a right not to be offended.
Everyone has a right not to live in fear of physical violence.
So speech that offends is OK, speech that promotes violence is not OK.
There will be grey areas in practice - that's one reason we have judges.
Although speech that offends is legal, going out of your way to offend probably makes you an asshole.
Sadly, there's no law against being an asshole.
People have a right to protest about speech that offends them (that too is part of free speech).
Institutions are free to decide who they give a platform to.
No institution is obliged to give a platform to anyone (possible exception: public service broadcasters?).
Protest and counter-protest are healthy aspects of a free society.

In short, the things that tend to irritate advocates of free speech are themselves aspects of free speech.

Finally it's worth remembering that some of the people that seek the protection of free speech are themselves highly illiberal (I'm thinking of the real far-right who would be happy to forcefully repatriate "foreigners" or to silence them in other ways).

 

[Paul R]

Again, you go back to free speech. I am not saying the fellow can't talk anywhere. I just ask if an institution can decide 'not here.'

It shouldn't be partial, and in a university environment the management banning speakers should be an extremely rare event, and not due to student pressure groups threatening violence.

Let's say you own a hall. Can you forbid someone to speak there, if you think they are too awful?

I generally shouldn't, and in the UK I sometimes won't be able to because we have an 'Equalities Act'. For a theoretical example, Labour politicians occasionally get photographed addressing segregated audiences. I think that is awful and want to make a point by rejecting the booking. But that would open me up to state funded prosecution for racial or religious discrimination.

But as usual you have gone to an extreme to justify banning the merely uncomfortable.

Paul

 

[Paul R]

No-one has a right not to be offended.

Check.

Everyone has a right not to live in fear of physical violence.

Check.

So speech that offends is OK, speech that promotes violence is not OK.

Check.

There will be grey areas in practice - that's one reason we have judges.

Check.

Although speech that offends is legal, going out of your way to offend probably makes you an asshole.

Check.

Sadly, there's no law against being an asshole.

Check.

People have a right to protest about speech that offends them (that too is part of free speech).

Check.

Institutions are free to decide who they give a platform to.

Check.

No institution is obliged to give a platform to anyone (possible exception: public service broadcasters?).

Check.

Protest and counter-protest are healthy aspects of a free society.

Check.

But universities should be challenging environments and when they shut out non-exceptional views under threat from noisy protestors they compromise their mission.

Germaine Greer for example, although I think her talk happened in the end with the help of the police.

Paul

 

[jackbarron]

I suspect there is an aspect of panto-like trolling here. Probably with some rather nasty undercurrents given the rise of "alt-right" rebranding of fascism.

PS I'm still firmly of the 1970s-80s Rock Against Racism/anti-apartheid mindset that fascists should be met with flying bricks and bottles on the streets if neccessary so may not be the right one to ask about this stuff! I have zero tolerance of the far right, they made any point they had to make at Auschwitz etc 20 years before I was born and they do not ever deserve a platform to make it again. As such blocking shit like Milo Yiannopoulos, Kurt Vilders etc from speaking in intelligent places is perfectly valid IMHO.

You're right. Fascists should be confronted on every level. With the current alt right and so-called fake news, they are being given a platform and legitimacy. This is very dangerous.

BNP leader Nick Griffin and discredited far right historian David Irving spoke at the Oxford Union in 2007. They were not given an easy time. Demonstrator clashed with the organizers and security guards.

Jack