how can anyone no platform national treasure Peter Tatchell

[Nearly Sane]

Struggling to understand what the racism claim is about


http://tinyurl.com/zaf69p2


And a good article on the overall issue

https://aeon.co/opinions/is-it-legitimate-to-ban-speakers-from-college-campuses

[Shaker]

This sort of thing is becoming increasingly common. Jerry Coyne's website quite regularly features examples of the phenomenon on American campuses; disappointingly but almost inevitably it's catching on here.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem is that many act with the best of intentions. We nearly all believe in some restrictions to free speech, indeed, there are restrictions on this board. Much of the recent actions have been caused by reactions to speech that might be seen as dangerously inflammatory but they take action with those they come in contact with who they see as supporting that rhetoric on a sliding scale. 

[Shaker]

The problem is that many act with the best of intentions. We nearly all believe in some restrictions to free speech, indeed, there are restrictions on this board. Much of the recent actions have been caused by reactions to speech that might be seen as dangerously inflammatory but they take action with those they come in contact with who they see as supporting that rhetoric on a sliding scale.

No argument there; but the outcome of this is the creation of a climate or a culture in universities where other voices, other points of view deemed controversial are silenced - there's an overall chilling effect such that any opinion which is judged to be in any way, however slight, controversial or, to use the contemporary buzzword, 'triggering' must not, should not be heard. Instead of being places to broaden one's mind by being exposed to new ideas and different stances, some people (a minority, I concede, but an active, noisy and influential minority) seem to want to turn them into factories of uniformity and orthodoxy where only one set of opinions is deemed to be acceptable. And that is extremely dangerous.

[Hope]

No argument there; but the outcome of this is the creation of a climate or a culture in universities where other voices, other points of view deemed controversial are silenced - there's an overall chilling effect such that any opinion which is judged to be in any way, however slight, controversial or, to use the contemporary buzzword, 'triggering' must not, should not be heard. Instead of being places to broaden one's mind by being exposed to new ideas and different stances, some people (a minority, I concede, but an active, noisy and influential minority) seem to want to turn them into factories of uniformity and orthodoxy where only one set of opinions is deemed to be acceptable. And that is extremely dangerous.

Couldn't agree more, Shakes.  Sadly, it seems to be in regard to the issues that are, by their very nature, the most controversial and in need of debate.

[Rhiannon]

This worries me too. It's as though one of the main purposes of universities - to challenge and formulate ideas - has been forgotten. Why on earth should university life be safe and sterile? Hiw does that prepare the next generation of leaders in their fields for the reality of the world?

[Nearly Sane]

The problem, though, is that there is always a line to be drawn. That people might draw the line at a different place doesn't mean that they are seeking to make things sterile. In order to argue this through with people, I am not sure that you can somehow charge them with forgetting one of the main purposes of university.

[Rhiannon]

The problem, though, is that there is always a line to be drawn. That people might draw the line at a different place doesn't mean that they are seeking to make things sterile. In order to argue this through with people, I am not sure that you can somehow charge them with forgetting one of the main purposes of university.

Whether or not it's the intent, that's the outcome.

[jeremyp]

The problem, though, is that there is always a line to be drawn. That people might draw the line at a different place doesn't mean that they are seeking to make things sterile. In order to argue this through with people, I am not sure that you can somehow charge them with forgetting one of the main purposes of university.

The problem here is that they are trying to silence Peter Tatchell only because he disagrees with where the line should be drawn, not because he agrees with the people that he thinks should have free speech.

[Nearly Sane]

The problem here is that they are trying to silence Peter Tatchell only because he disagrees with where the line should be drawn, not because he agrees with the people that he thinks should have free speech.

Sorry, I may not have been clear there. I don't think they support free speech, in absolute terms, I don't think anyone does. I also think they are wrong about where to draw the line but I just don't think you progress the argument by thinking we can suggest that this is free speech vs anti free speech. It's about where and why you draw a line.

[Nearly Sane]

Whether or not it's the intent, that's the outcome.

If it's the outcome of anything attempt to restrict free speech then we are all part of the outcome. Or should I allow someone to campaign for the death of Jews as part of university freedom?

[Rhiannon]

If it's the outcome of anything attempt to restrict free speech then we are all part of the outcome. Or should I allow someone to campaign for the death of Jews as part of university freedom?

I was referring not so much to this incident as the general trend - the avoidance of the difficult as Shaker describes. We're probably talking at cross purposes somewhat.

[Nearly Sane]

I was referring not so much to this incident as the general trend - the avoidance of the difficult as Shaker describes. We're probably talking at cross purposes somewhat.

I think there is an issue with seeing a trend, giving it a name and then using the name to argue why it is wrong - it's a version of the reification fallacy. The reason why we draw the line is, I would suggest, that we accept that free speech needs to be balanced with the possibility of harm. I don't think that those who are part of the trend see themselves as doing anything more than seeking that balance - that they draw it at a different place does not mean that simply in calling that 'avoidance of the difficult' we are engaging with their position.

There is an echo of the use of 'PC gone mad' phrase here, and the irony is, of course, that many now no platformed had in the past been labelled as mad PCers. To then simply use the approach of  former opponents, albeit with loftier sounding names, is surely a form of hypocrisy?

[Rhiannon]

I think there is an issue with seeing a trend, giving it a name and then using the name to argue why it is wrong - it's a version of the reification fallacy. The reason why we draw the line is, I would suggest, that we accept that free speech needs to be balanced with the possibility of harm. I don't think that those who are part of the trend see themselves as doing anything more than seeking that balance - that they draw it at a different place does not mean that simply in calling that 'avoidance of the difficult' we are engaging with their position.

There is an echo of the use of 'PC gone mad' phrase here, and the irony is, of course, that many now no platformed had in the past been labelled as mad PCers. To then simply use the approach of  former opponents, albeit with loftier sounding names, is surely a form of hypocrisy?

I've given it a description, not a name.

To describe difficult subjects - racism or sexism for example - as 'triggering' does avoid having to face them. The original use of trigger warnings served a genuine purpose - it warned readers or listeners that the content could trigger disturbed feelings, usually because it involved abuse survival, self-harm, suicidal thinking and so on. To now describe uncomfortable - not extreme - points of view as 'triggering' says explicitly that the listener does not want to be made to confront that discomfort. Which us fine, except that then gets imposed on everyone else. Then it isn't fine.

Of course there has to be a line drawn. But I don't see the hypocrisy in pointing out that the rest of us live in a world where discomfort is the norm and not allowing that into university doesn't appear to be to anybody's benefit.

[Nearly Sane]

I've given it a description, not a name.

To describe difficult subjects - racism or sexism for example - as 'triggering' does avoid having to face them. The original use of trigger warnings served a genuine purpose - it warned readers or listeners that the content could trigger disturbed feelings, usually because it involved abuse survival, self-harm, suicidal thinking and so on. To now describe uncomfortable - not extreme - points of view as 'triggering' says explicitly that the listener does not want to be made to confront that discomfort. Which us fine, except that then gets imposed on everyone else. Then it isn't fine.

Of course there has to be a line drawn. But I don't see the hypocrisy in pointing out that the rest of us live in a world where discomfort is the norm and not allowing that into university doesn't appear to be to anybody's benefit.

Which is then surely applicable to stopping someone advocating the killing of all Jews. What is different about the method you are using to draw your line and why is it not then definable as the 'avoidance of the difficult?

[Rhiannon]

Surely we can tell what is likely to cause harm and what isn't? What is inciting hate speech and what is ignorance and unpleasant? It is as you say about balance, and for me it is not that the right to free speech is sacrosanct - lines have to be drawn - so much that if the ignorant and unpleasant are not heard and debated then they go unchallenged to the point where we don't know what to do with them. It seems to me that universities are the ideal places to look clearly at the stupid notions that our society is thick with and to learn to dismantle them thoroughly.

[Nearly Sane]

Given the many debates i've seen through the years on what is hate speech, and what speech should be banned, I think it is precisely not something we can say is easy to know. Over the course of the last thirty years there have been many changes in how that is defined. Currently in Scotland, you can provoke quite an acrimonious debate on the subject of songs at football matches and is 'up to their knees in Fenian blood' hate speech or a traditional folk song.

I remember back to the campaign at my student union to ban the showing of por n films. (Note Predictive text gave me pork films there but I deny being at university with the Prime Minister). That was defined in terms of what was respectful and derided as feminist nonsense or indeed PC gone mad.


The thread I have just opened on boycotting of Israeli products reminds me of people campaigning on both sides of the divide in the Israel/Palestine troubles that allowing the other side to speak was supporting war crimes/terrorism. One of the justifications for the new legislation is that the boycotts encourage anti Semitism so again we seem to be in disputes about what is hate speech.

I firmly disagree with the stance taken in many student unions but I also remember in the 80s, my stance on some aspects of what should be allowed at my university on many subjects would have been.described as irrelevant by some because of my gender, sexuality, colour, nationality or any combination of those. We hadn't invented checking ones privilege then and that I was cisgendered was not a phrase available either, but the approach and rhetoric remain very similar even if the terms have changed.

[Nearly Sane]

Somewhat bizarrely the odd occasional software that seems to forbid stuff on the forum stopped my last post till I changed porn to por n

[Nearly Sane]

To return to the subject, it's obvious that even on this forum there are diverse views on what should be allowed, and much of the 'case law' that we have developed on here is quite contradictory, it seems to me. Acceptable speech, even what is defined as speech, is a fraught area.

[jeremyp]

Sorry, I may not have been clear there. I don't think they support free speech, in absolute terms, I don't think anyone does. I also think they are wrong about where to draw the line but I just don't think you progress the argument by thinking we can suggest that this is free speech vs anti free speech. It's about where and why you draw a line.

I agree with all that, but one thing I am fairly certain of is that the line as to what should be allowed and what shouldn't should not be in a place such that it is impossible for people to suggest it is in the wrong place. This is what has happened to Peter Tatchell.

[Gonnagle]

Pornographic.

Testing testing.

[Gonnagle]

porn

Testing testing.

[Shaker]

Wankel rotary engine.

Testing testing.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Shaker,

Was just wondering what Sane was on about.

Somewhat bizarrely the odd occasional software that seems to forbid stuff on the forum stopped my last post till I changed porn to por n

Gonnagle.

[Shaker]

Pawnshop.

See? No problem.