BBC article - Free speech plan to tackle 'silencing' views on campus

[Pluckedpencil]

This is an article today on the BBC website. Does anyone know what it stems from? It feels like trans activism, but I'm not sure.

I know from my time sitting in at a few lefty meetings at Oxford there were repeated cries to no platform various speakers, I remember they tried it with Michael Jackson but it was just too big a ground swell and everyone wanted it. There are a few very small cliques who make these no platforming decisions. It is not democratic and is almost certainly an attempt to steer the debate. I see no reason why even an ignoble and indefensible view can't have a platform. The whole point is that something indefensible will be indefensible in an intelligent debate!

With the internet, you can't take the platforms away from people like Tommy Robinson, It just ends up he's preaching to the faithful and having absolutely no argument being put his way.

My view is that if your students can't take an imbecile like Tommy Robinson apart in debate, then you need to take a long hard look at your institution.

“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Freedom of speech isn't the law in this country. We aren't free to say what we like, contrary to what many people seem to believe.

@Hereward1332

No platforming stifles debate, meaning issues are aired in an echo chamber. Challenging distasteful views in the open is the better way to combat them than virtue signalling no-platforming

Yes, absolutely. Rather than pretending that views you find distasteful don't exist by cancelling them, challenge them.

@persistentwoman

The Nick Griffin example is always a good one (once leader of the far right racist BNP). He was invited to appear on Question Time. Everyone was outraged - giving a platform to a known racist! His appearance ended his career - he lost all credibility, coming over as evasive, smirking and unable to answer questions. His appearance was derided, even by his own supporters. University students must be exposed to opposing views and learn to argue with them. It's telling that many of those being no platformed are women arguing that the definition of a woman is adult human female and that children below the age of consent should not be given puberty stopping drugs.

Nigel Farage is on Question Time so much you'd think he was the presenter. It has only made him worse, and made "the debate" worse, and moved the overton window way over to the right.

As we are seeing now with the rise of conspiracy theories and hate groups on the Internet, the two biggest factors in the growth of hatred are 1) exposure to ideas not previously found within your social circle and 2) being able to associate with communities, online or otherwise, of like minded people. It has been shown time and time again that it doesn't work to 'challenge and debate' views - all you do is give them more exposure and validation, presentinf anti-fact or bigoted views as equally valid to others when they are not. It's false balance and it has infected too much already.

Re "stiflinf debate": some things aren't a debate! Take Holocaust denial or covid deniers, for instance (that Venn diagram is basically a circle, anyway...) -- what they espouse is patently false; there is no question, no uncertainty.
Why should they be given a platform? or given the mechanism, as this government seems to want, to claim compensation for NOT having a platform?

I wonder what people think if someone is not coming to debate but is coming just to give a lecture on their view to a group of people who are interested in hearing that view.
Say it was someone who believed that Western society was corrupt and that an Islamic State where women should know their place was the way forward.

No debating. No counter view. Just someone expressing their strongly held beliefs to a group of people who may be convinced by the rhetoric.

And stop for one second and think about for example, ethnic minority students who you are essentially saying should have their very existence and human rights 'debated'. It isn't a debate. The debate is over, anyone who wants to continue it needs to be shut down and told this. Some views aren't up for debate - you are just wrong.

Nigel Farage is on Question Time so much you'd think he was the presenter. It has only made him worse, and made "the debate" worse, and moved the overton window way over to the right.
That is a question, and justifiable challenge, to throw at Question Time and similar shows.

Personally, I think the left scored several own goals that helped shift the Overton Window and the main one is the fact that there's a chunk of the left who are more preoccupied with navel gazing, identity politics and yelling bigot than grasping the concerns and issues of the day. Had they spent more time listening to moderate concerns about immigration and engaging in political debate, instead of arguing anyone expressing concerns was a racist, then Farrage and his cronies wouldn't have been so appealing. One of their appeals was the 'alright mate, I'm just like you down the pub, but all those political types keep telling you to shut up, I'm offering you an alternative and am like you'.

@Pukkatea

And stop for one second and think about for example, ethnic minority students who you are essentially saying should have their very existence and human rights 'debated'. It isn't a debate. The debate is over, anyone who wants to continue it needs to be shut down and told this. Some views aren't up for debate - you are just wrong.

exactly!

@Pukkatea

And stop for one second and think about for example, ethnic minority students who you are essentially saying should have their very existence and human rights 'debated'. It isn't a debate. The debate is over, anyone who wants to continue it needs to be shut down and told this. Some views aren't up for debate - you are just wrong.

Who gets to decide which views aren't up for debate?

There's a huge difference between no-platforming a speaker who says Jews are bad and one who says transwomen are biologically male.

Who gets to decide what is ok to be said and not ok be said?

@suspiria777

Re "stiflinf debate": some things aren't a debate! Take Holocaust denial or covid deniers, for instance (that Venn diagram is basically a circle, anyway...) -- what they espouse is patently false; there is no question, no uncertainty. Why should they be given a platform? or given the mechanism, as this government seems to want, to claim compensation for NOT having a platform?

But both of those pov’s can be easily rebutted. Even my 13 year old son could argue against those positions easily. If you don’t allow those views out in the open, they fester in what’s app groups and you tube videos. Let Covid deniers speak. It’s easy to counter them

There's a huge difference between no-platforming a speaker who says Jews are bad and one who says transwomen are biologically male

Not to transwomen there isn't. They will argue that they exist and there's no debate to be had.

So yet again, who gets to decide? Twitter? Google? The governments around the world? Mainstream media?

And again, what naked when positions change? All of a sudden the position you hold is the one being no platformed? Will you just shrug your shoulders as say "well this private company is within it's rights to ban me" I doubt that you will see it that way.

And again, what naked when positions change? All of a sudden the position you hold is the one being no platformed? Will you just shrug your shoulders as say "well this private company is within it's rights to ban me" I doubt that you will see it that way.

Well, conversely: what about when the position you occupy (as a woman, as a disabled person, as a person of a particular faith or no faith at all, etc.) is the thing being "debated" by groups of people who would deny you the right to exist? Or who deny an historical genocide? And use rhetoric that you know directly contributes to crimes against you? Would you really be happy with that?

@Pukkatea

And stop for one second and think about for example, ethnic minority students who you are essentially saying should have their very existence and human rights 'debated'. It isn't a debate. The debate is over, anyone who wants to continue it needs to be shut down and told this. Some views aren't up for debate - you are just wrong.

This is such a very dangerous point of view and I disagree entirely with you. Not about your content - I loathe Holocaust deniers for example - but you cannot say x is a fact, end of, without seriously risking shutting yourself out from being heard. What would happen to your voice, in a totalitarian state?

Well, conversely: what about when the position you occupy (as a woman, as a disabled person, as a person of a particular faith or no faith at all, etc.) is the thing being "debated" by groups of people who would deny you the right to exist? Or who deny an historical genocide? And use rhetoric that you know directly contributes to crimes against you? Would you really be happy with that?

That is a strawman. No one is denying trans people's right to exist. As with religions, though, it is perfectly legitimate (and, indeed, necessary in a democratic society) to question a belief system. And attempts to deny a historical genocide are easily dealt with. In fact, they can be dealt with far more quickly and effectively if they are rebutted on a university campus, by experts, than if they are left to fester and snowball on weird corners of the internet. The "no debate" position and moral authoritarianism of the left is currently fueling a rise in extremism.

@GCAcademic

Well, conversely: what about when the position you occupy (as a woman, as a disabled person, as a person of a particular faith or no faith at all, etc.) is the thing being "debated" by groups of people who would deny you the right to exist? Or who deny an historical genocide? And use rhetoric that you know directly contributes to crimes against you? Would you really be happy with that?

That is a strawman. No one is denying trans people's right to exist. As with religions, though, it is perfectly legitimate (and, indeed, necessary in a democratic society) to question a belief system. And attempts to deny a historical genocide are easily dealt with. In fact, they can be dealt with far more quickly and effectively if they are rebutted on a university campus, by experts, than if they are left to fester and snowball on weird corners of the internet. The "no debate" position and moral authoritarianism of the left is currently fueling a rise in extremism.

I didn't say anything about trans people? What about Jews, gay people, disabled people, communists, catholics, black people, roma...?

Surely free speech should be just that - and people should be allowed to express their views on campus about anything without being cancelled

I wonder where that line would be drawn

I think we should have freedom of speech. Something we don’t have in the UK.
If people are allowed to say what they truly believe then you can make a judgement on that person.
As a politician not knowing what people are thinking just leads to decisions being made that aren’t the will of the country. Or them misreading situations and getting disastrous outcomes
We are a nation where those in power are making decisions based on what they think people want but the people can’t say what they want because it isn’t allowed.
One of the points about going to university is or used to be years ago that you are exposed to many different views and you can debate and make your own conclusions about what you believe.
If a belief is so flimsy that it is not allowed to be talked about because it would fall apart then there must be something wrong with the belief.

The "no debate" position and moral authoritarianism of the left is currently fueling a rise in extremism

What do you think about someone coming to campus, not having a debate but spreading their beliefs about how they think women should be treated, how LGBT people should be treated, how minorities should be treated to a bunch of people who don't want a debate but who could easily be persuaded and radicalised by those views?

Should that person be allowed to spread their views in such a way - or should a university be allowed to say "Sorry, we don't want people with those views spreading them amongst people"

If a belief is so flimsy that it is not allowed to be talked about because it would fall apart then there must be something wrong with the belief.

I think the question here is more about the HARM of a particular belief -- that's what governs speech limitations, not whether or not the speech is robust!
If speech can cause harm "ginger people are a genetic flaw and should not be allowed to reproduce" why do you think people should have to put up with it?

@chomalungma

The "no debate" position and moral authoritarianism of the left is currently fueling a rise in extremism

What do you think about someone coming to campus, not having a debate but spreading their beliefs about how they think women should be treated, how LGBT people should be treated, how minorities should be treated to a bunch of people who don't want a debate but who could easily be persuaded and radicalised by those views?

Should that person be allowed to spread their views in such a way - or should a university be allowed to say "Sorry, we don't want people with those views spreading them amongst people"

Someone can't just "come to campus". They have to be invited by a member of the university, and they are never given an opportunity to speak unchallenged. It's a university, not an evangelical church. It's also quite insulting to say that members of a university could be "easily persuaded and radicalised".

The end of safe spaces - and a return to assuming that people can make up their own minds after a debate. Its bad that "no platforming" became a thing here, and I hope a statutory requirement will ensure that debate is protected.