You must listen ...

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Robbie]

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.

[Harrowby Hall]

"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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[jeremyp]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Robbie]

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.