Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 27, 2017, 04:14:14 PM
-
This seems a tad ironic
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/26/jo-johnson-universities-no-platforming-freedom-of-speech
-
It depends what they mean by freedom of speech. For instance, would they permit extreme right wingers who support white supremacy, or paedophiles who think they have a right to have sex with children, to have their say?
-
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, it means allowing anything to be said.
-
This seems a tad ironic
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/26/jo-johnson-universities-no-platforming-freedom-of-speech
In what way is it ironic? I am genuinely failing to see the irony.
There is a problem with free speech in Universities. It's worse in the USA but it's beginning to be seen over here too. There seems to be a belief amongst the members of certain organisations - often student organisations - that it is OK to intimidate and disrupt universities and other organisations who have booked certain people to do speaking engagements based purely on things the speakers have said in the past.
For example, Germaine Greer once raised the question of whether trans women can really be regarded as women because they haven't lived the experience of a woman from birth. A lot of people got offended by what she said and therefore decided she shouldn't be allowed a public platform even if she wasn't going to talk about gender transition. This is not censoring speech you don't like, it is censoring speakers. If Germaine Greer can find somebody to give her a platform and there are people who are interested in hearing what she has to say, then using intimidation and disruption to prevent her from being heard is an infringement on her right of free speech and it needs to be stopped.
Even for political extremists who have offensive things to say, I'd rather hear what they have to say than be "protected" by their political enemies.
or paedophiles who think they have a right to have sex with children, to have their say?
That is a difficult one, but I would say, if they can persuade somebody to give them a platform, provided they say nothing illegal, they have a right to speak. You will not be able to dissuade them from their beliefs about having sex with children unless you understand them, distasteful as that may be.
-
Puzzled why universities will be fined when it is the students' union no-platforming.
-
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, it means allowing anything to be said.
I disagree.
-
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, it means allowing anything to be said.
No it's more complicated than that.
As it's the festive season let's wheel out an old chestnut.
Are you allowed to shout fire in a packed theatre even though there isn't a fire, thus potentially causing a stampede and injury or death?
It is a question of rights balanced against responsibility.
The issue in my mind is where you draw the boundary between those two competing elements.
-
Free speech was permitting the now banned Paedophile Information Exchange broadcast their sick views on BBC Radio in the 80s! :o
-
Free speech was permitting the now banned Paedophile Information Exchange broadcast their sick views on BBC Radio in the 80s! :o
No, I don't think that was due to free speech.
-
This is close to what I was getting at in my previous post:
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/free-speech-freedom-expression-human-right
-
That sounds about right to me. Responsibility being the key word.
-
Puzzled why universities will be fined when it is the students' union no-platforming.
At my university (York), the Students Union derived its funding from the University. I would assume that is the norm at other universities too.
-
Free speech was permitting the now banned Paedophile Information Exchange broadcast their sick views on BBC Radio in the 80s! :o
It wouldn't have allowed them to broadcast anything illegal on the BBC and the BBC does not have a duty to allow anybody who wants to to broadcast on their services.
-
It wouldn't have allowed them to broadcast anything illegal on the BBC and the BBC does not have a duty to allow anybody who wants to to broadcast on their services.
I heard the broadcast, and it was shocking. They claimed children had a right to have sex with adults! >:( I believe the BBC was inundated with complaints, and not long after the PIE was banned.
-
I heard the broadcast, and it was shocking. They claimed children had a right to have sex with adults!
So why don't they have a right to say that? Is it breaking the law to say it? Is it inciting other people to break the law?
While you are at it, can you articulate a counter argument to their point of view? I think I can, but I'll let you have a go first to prove this is not just a knee jerk reaction on your part.
I believe the BBC was inundated with complaints, and not long after the PIE was banned.
So was the PIE banned because they expressed their views on the BBC thus making people aware of what they were about? If so, how can you claim that they should have been gagged?
-
LR I don't know about the organisation you mention but you say it was a long time ago. I would have thought they'd have had to find some sort of independent radio station to broadcast their stuff and even that would have been short lived because of public outcry. People like that generally keep their views and activities strictly secret. One argument in favour is that if they go public, at least they're known, and they have the right to say it if not to act, but most people don't want to turn their radio on and hear it. These are extreme minorities though.
(I'll just mention it has been said to me that because I (& presumably some others), find a concept disgusting is not a reason to ban it; in other words, reasonable, logical arguments must be produced. That seems fair enough on a debating forum.)
Most free speech issues would be political, right or left, social & justice issues, maybe some religious. In the distant & not so distant past, the abolition of slavery, emancipation of women, cessation of capital punishment and decriminalisation of homosexuality were controversial issues which not everyone wanted aired but, thankfully, were allowed.
-
We will have to agree to differ on this topic, so I shall say no more.
-
We will have to agree to differ on this topic, so I shall say no more.
Are you talking to me or Robbie? The reason I ask is because I'd like to hear your response. I'm fairly hard line on free speech within the law so I need to hear opposing posts of view to help me validate or change my position.
-
LR has the right to say no more. All I'll say LR is that there are many more issues than the paedophile one which you mentioned. Most, even those with whom we differ on politics, would not in a million years think of paedophilic acts. I've certainly never heard anyone advocating it on radio or TV & am glad of it.
An American friend who spends time both here and in the States tells me there is far more free speech in the USA. The most vile, extreme racist groups are allowed to strut their stuff in public and when Obama was campaigning for presidency, in some areas he was lynched, strung up and burned in effigy! She spent many years arguing, debating with them, seeking to understand and hoping to change minds. She's given up now and doesn't want anything more to do with them, it's been too exhausting.
If a similar thing happened here it would be very much undercover, probably at a Nazi rally, infiltrated by Louis Theroux.
-
LR has the right to say no more.
And I have the right to ask her to say more and she has the right to ignore my request or tell me to bugger off. What is your point?
All I'll say LR is that there are many more issues than the paedophile one which you mentioned. Most, even those with whom we differ on politics, would not in a million years think of paedophilic acts. I've certainly never heard anyone advocating it on radio or TV & am glad of it.
Pedophilia is an important test case with respect to freedom of speech though, because it is a very emotive issue.
-
Not making any point jeremy. I was agreeing with LR and I agree with what you have just said is all.
Yes it is an emotive subject but it isn't the only one, it bothers me a bit when people keep on bringing it up, as if it is worrying away at them all the time. That's my problem though.
Floo also mentioned white supremacists and we have those here in the UK. As far as I know they enjoy free speech as long as they don't advocate violence/hate crimes.
-
Yes it is an emotive subject but it isn't the only one, it bothers me a bit when people keep on bringing it up, as if it is worrying away at them all the time. That's my problem though.
I understand that feeling totally, Robbie.
When I hear some people talk about paedophiles it often seems that they have reserved all their bile and hatred for them; and I understand that in a way; but I also worry that it deters a more rational approach being taken to the issue that might actually contribute to making the situation better for children.
I suppose what I am saying is that simply stating "paedophiles are scum" doesn't actually solve anything.
-
I am vaguely aware of the incident that Floo refers to with regards the BBC broadcast; I don't remember that but I do remember newspaper headlines at the time (I was a child myself then) and I also have seen accounts of the group and its demise since. It's difficult to be sure because it's largely been the right wing press that dig this story over, but from what I can gather some on the liberal left at the time did fall for the idea that children had the right to choose to be sexually active and that there was nothing wrong with sex between adults and children if it was the child's 'choice'. This led to the Paedophile Information Exchange leader getting the platforms that he did. The impression that I get is that because he got to speak on the BBC etc the group's activities were bright out into the open and it is this that led to the banning of it. Free speech meant that what they said could be examined, and found to be wrong, perhaps even leading to some of the understanding that we have now.
-
Free speech meant that what they said could be examined, and found to be wrong, perhaps even leading to some of the understanding that we have now.
Exactly.
If person A tells me that person B has reprehensible views, I might trust person A's opinion, but I'd like to see for myself too. Also, if person B's views really are that bad, spouting them in public is likely to have negative consequences.
-
Indeed. Censorship prevents the proper examination of ideas. It can actually protect unacceptable ideas by preventing their effective scrutiny.
-
In what way is it ironic? I am genuinely failing to see the irony.
There is a problem with free speech in Universities. It's worse in the USA but it's beginning to be seen over here too. There seems to be a belief amongst the members of certain organisations - often student organisations - that it is OK to intimidate and disrupt universities and other organisations who have booked certain people to do speaking engagements based purely on things the speakers have said in the past.
For example, Germaine Greer once raised the question of whether trans women can really be regarded as women because they haven't lived the experience of a woman from birth. A lot of people got offended by what she said and therefore decided she shouldn't be allowed a public platform even if she wasn't going to talk about gender transition. This is not censoring speech you don't like, it is censoring speakers. If Germaine Greer can find somebody to give her a platform and there are people who are interested in hearing what she has to say, then using intimidation and disruption to prevent her from being heard is an infringement on her right of free speech and it needs to be stopped.
Even for political extremists who have offensive things to say, I'd rather hear what they have to say than be "protected" by their political enemies.
That is a difficult one, but I would say, if they can persuade somebody to give them a platform, provided they say nothing illegal, they have a right to speak. You will not be able to dissuade them from their beliefs about having sex with children unless you understand them, distasteful as that may be.
It seems ironic because even no platforming is a form of free speech. Given that free speech is not as trentvoyager has already covered a right that most do not regard as absolute, and one that the govt and the law do not see as absolute, then they are merely disagreeing about what should be allowed. I think those who argue for no platforming such as Germaine Greer are wrong but I don't see how using fines to try and enforce that they accept what you or I think is not also an attempt to restrict their speech and right to campaign about what they think is acceptable.
I note that at the same time as this, the Security minister in govt is talking about using taxation to affect what internet media companies allow to be shown - and given the language used is far from precise, it gives out a mixed message about what the govt thinks on free speech. In addition it seems odd to be proposing taxation as some form of punitive measure.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42526271
There are a number of other posts on here which seem to portray censorship as an absolute wrong, and yet it seems to me another thing that we look on as good as long as we agree with it. So the board is moderated by agreement with the rules, and I haven't seen much on here arguing that it should've a free for all in society. Liberalism, which seems to be what most on here espouse, in its classic sense is about a balance different forms of freedom, and I think we need to be more nuanced here about what is acceptable.
-
It seems ironic because even no platforming is a form of free speech.
I think that depends on what you mean by "no platforming". If it's not inviting people to speak, I quite agree with you. If it's preventing other people from inviting people to speak by means of violence, threats of violence or disruption, I disagree with you.
There are a number of other posts on here which seem to portray censorship as an absolute wrong, and yet it seems to me another thing that we look on as good as long as we agree with it.
I tend to qualify my position as free speech "within the law". I think the current balance is about right, with maybe a few edge cases I disagree with.
-
I think that depends on what you mean by "no platforming". If it's not inviting people to speak, I quite agree with you. If it's preventing other people from inviting people to speak by means of violence, threats of violence or disruption, I disagree with you.
I tend to qualify my position as free speech "within the law". I think the current balance is about right, with maybe a few edge cases I disagree with.
I think using violence or threats of violence needs to be prosecuted against the individuals doing that, not fining a university. Disruption is another matter. If it's a form of protest that isn't a threat then that seems to me covered by idea of free speech and activity.
Your position on the law being right is surely a statement that you think that the censorship embodied in the law is censorship you approve of?
-
We all feel glad that something we find abhorrent is frowned upon (as said by NS: "There are a number of other posts on here which seem to portray censorship as an absolute wrong, and yet it seems to me another thing that we look on as good as long as we agree with it."), but it was pointed out to me earlier in my R&E postings that just because I don't like something, doesn't automatically mean it should be banned. So we must present cogent arguments for/against. I agree with that. Also disagree with violent protest. Yet in recent years young people (or person), have been prosecuted - an 'example' made of them - for acting daft at a protest under influence when nobody died. Charlie Gilmour.
This is an emotive subject.
-
"There are a number of other posts on here which seem to portray censorship as an absolute wrong, and yet it seems to me another thing that we look on as good as long as we agree with it." .... This is an emotive subject.
I wonder whether my response is one which is seen to portray censorship as an absolute wrong? It was not my intention to suggest this.
Censorship has been used throughout the ages often as a tool of repression than of protection - protecting only those with power not those who are vulnerable. An example of this, I suppose, is the Index Librorum Prohibitorum of the RC Church.
I am also concerned at the idea of "making an example" and "sending a message". The message senders - all too frequently - ignore the fact that a message which does not reach its intended audience is not a message. For communication to take place requires a transmitter and a receiver. To assume that a message has been sent is not reliable communication.
-
But isn't the govt here trying to send a message by its fining of those it sees as repressing free speech even if they didn't actually carry it any such thing?
-
Disruption is another matter. If it's a form of protest that isn't a threat then that seems to me covered by idea of free speech and activity.
Disruption of other people speaking is an infringement of the principle of free speech. Free speech means nothing if the people who want to hear you can't. Whilst I think it would be problematic to make such disruptions illegal, I see no problem with the organisers of events taking steps to prevent such disruptions.
Your position on the law being right is surely a statement that you think that the censorship embodied in the law is censorship you approve of?
I think my position is quite clear from my last post.
-
Disruption of other people speaking is an infringement of the principle of free speech. Free speech means nothing if the people who want to hear you can't. Whilst I think it would be problematic to make such disruptions illegal, I see no problem with the organisers of events taking steps to prevent such disruptions.
I think my position is quite clear from my last post.
Except that's the paradox of the free speech youh want to defend. Protest, is a value form of it, but you want to stop that if you disagree with it.
As to the second para, why not just answer the question?
-
Except that's the paradox of the free speech youh want to defend. Protest, is a value form of it, but you want to stop that if ypy disagree with it.
You can protest against something without disrupting it. There is no paradox. Disrupting somebody else's legitimate speaking engagement is denying them their right to free speech.
As to the second para, why not just answer the question?
I did already. I don't know why you were asking it after I had made my position clear. Is there anything unclear about what I said other than the fact that I deliberately left the edge cases unstated?
-
You can protest against something without disrupting it. There is no paradox. Disrupting somebody else's legitimate speaking engagement is denying them their right to free speech.
I did already. I don't know why you were asking it after I had made my position clear. Is there anything unclear about what I said other than the fact that I deliberately left the edge cases unstated?
Don't protests disrupt things? And again isn't 'legitimate' here simply you saying the things you approve of?
You didn't answer the question but said you thought you had made it clear somehow. I disagree as I don't see it as an answer, so what is your answer?
-
Harrowby Hall:- "I wonder whether my response is one which is seen to portray censorship as an absolute wrong? It was not my intention to suggest this."
Not at all HH, I assure you.