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.

But why can't people be no-platformed? Like what is wrong with that?

@suspiria777 until you're the one being no-platformed, or in other words banned from speaking.

I think most people are comfortable with some sort of censorship until the censors attempt to stop things that they [people] believe in.

Tommy Robinson is a total strawman. Most of the people being ‘cancelled’ or no-platformed are not Tommy Robinson. They are people with views 99pc of the population would agree with (eg women are adult human females) but that fo against extreme, totalitarian, woke ideology.

Someone was saying the other day even Hitler and Goebbels were in favour of free speech for those they agreed with.

Free speech helps establish consensus

@Pukkatea

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.

But who gets to decide what is allowed and what is not? That's why we have freedom of speech (and very specific, nuanced laws about hate speech).

TRAs would say I am full of hatred for my gender critical feminism but I dispute that in the strongest possible terms, my views on this issue are not hateful.

There are so many screaming shouting voices that people have lost the ability to see the nuances of debate. Students and young people should be encouraged to listen to and debate views they disagree with. That's how you challenge them, and develop your own critical thinking skills.

Did this only start happening once students became consumers? The customer is always right?

@LolaSmiles

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'.

Very true.

@NoToMisogyny

Did this only start happening once students became consumers? The customer is always right?

That is certainly a bit part of the problem. There's an attitude that paying your fee means that you get to demand that your views are validated.

I think the practice is American really, and imported and depends on narratives which are from the United States. By extension, there is an idea that the UK is functionally the same or should be in terms of its universities, which have been very different.

big

@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"

But what do you mean by coming to campus and spreading those views, without a debate, to people who might be influenced by those views. Are the students so weak that they mustn't be allowed to listen to dangerous views and make their own minds up? If you were a student on campus, and a lecture was arranged where the speaker was espousing extreme racist rhetoric for example, what would you do? Surely if these views were so abhorrent you would challenge them?

Who gets to decide then on campus which views are allowed, and which are so awful they mustn't be heard? - what if you personally disagreed with the powers that be, if they banned for example a speaker that you personally happen to agree with? Would you just think oh, my view must be wrong then?

Everyone is entitled to air their view the allegation of hate speech is used to stifle views people don’t like . Debate is part of our freedom

CheddarGorgeous
You can't just put your hands over your ears and shout "la la la la la la" and pretend that people with different, sometimes harmful views don't exist. Putting a spotlight on them is a far more effective way of dealing with them.
I think this argument is fundamentally flawed. We’ve seen a rise in extremist views as the likes of Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos have had access to the internet to platform themselves. This stuff has seeped out far further and become more mainstream. Deplatforming is completely appropriate. If people want to discuss this stuff in their own circles they are free to do so, but they don’t have to have an audience offered up to them .
I’m very concerned about this new initiative.

@tinierclanger what's the evidence there are more, extremist views? I think it's as prevalent as it always has been? What's the evidence that university events or teaching has promulgated them? In fact it's the opposite.

I loathe racism, sexism, antisemitism etc. but you can't pretend to protect young people from it by deplatforming. Give them some credit to be able to stand up to it.

Would you just think oh, my view must be wrong then?

There's the issue. Those who would like to be authoritarian are so convinced they are in the right that can't conceive being wrong. Therefore they don't see a future where they'll be the ones getting no platformed.

@sashagabadon

But isn’t the answer to invite Tommy Robinson and then allow a civilised debate on his views. Not screaming and shouting and no platforming. It helps to know people like Tommy Robinson arguments about whatever so they can be countered by other arguments. In 10 years time it might be the views of the pro-no-platform students that are threatened with no-platforming so this protects their opinions too. Be careful what you wish for springs to mind. I agree with Gavin and think this is a good step forward.

I agree with this. By airing unpleasant views and laying them open to being thoroughly debated, dissected and challenged, this is how critical thinking develops and nuance is found. Assuming no one is forced to attend such talks of course.

It is only by shining a light on and challenging opposing stances that things are meaningfully proven or undermined so the notion that putting fingers in one’s ears en masse somehow makes it go away is very naive and intellectually pathetic.

The clever way to deal with such speakers that you disagree with is to take them on and absolutely smash them through open debates.

No debate = instantly divisive and an instant intellectual “lose”.

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

But with freedom of speech they don’t have to put up with it. That is what is being shut down, the debate. The chance to show that whilst a few people might think a certain thing they can’t go around unchallenged by saying it.
At the moment we have a minority of people saying something that is what I believe scientifically untrue yet no one can challenge them.

Because the best way to deal with offensive viewpoints is to publically scrutinise them and expose them as nonsense.

But when such views get broadcast in public, they typically persuade others... look what happened with QAnon, with Covid denial, in 1930s Germany. Giving Hitler a microphone only helped him.

But when such views get broadcast in public, they typically persuade others... look what happened with QAnon, with Covid denial

But those things aren't broadcast in public, are they? They're festering on the internet in spaces like Facebook groups which are heavily censored and which are mobilised by people with an agenda. If they had been properly countered within a genuinely public space, they probably wouldn't have achieved the success they have.

I think this argument is fundamentally flawed. We’ve seen a rise in extremist views as the likes of Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos have had access to the internet to platform themselves. This stuff has seeped out far further and become more mainstream. Deplatforming is completely appropriate. If people want to discuss this stuff in their own circles they are free to do so, but they don’t have to have an audience offered up to them
I’m very concerned about this new initiative.

Interesting that you mention Milo Yiannopoulos as the sort of person who is beyond the pale and deserves no-platforming.

At the Manchester University Event which Milo Yiannopoulos and feminist writer Julie Bindel were scheduled to speak - guess who got no-platformed ....

clue, it wasn't Milo.

So universities are not necessarily using their power to limit free speech against the extremists who have views that we find totally unacceptable and potentially illegal.

They are using their powers to silence women who defend women's rights and biological reality. That can't be acceptable?

[quote LexMitior]@GCAcademic

Maybe she is not used to this sort of debate, which goes to the root of the issue, does it not?[/quote]
What do I think?

I think it's very complicated and there are lots of arguments on all sides of this and it's not just a binary issue.

Unless people think you have free speech or you don't have free speech. And if you have free speech, then anything goes and any speaker can be invited to speak about anything because that's what free speech is.

I think there are some people who are all for free speech and who condemn cancel culture - unless the person is saying something they don't agree with and is trying to start a debate - and then they say that that person should be sacked, write endless columns in the newspapers about the issue and use their massive platforms to criticise the person who has said that thing.

I think that there are times when a group needs to have a safe space to talk about something, to invite a speaker along and to have a discussion without people being there who don't agree with what's being discussed. People criticise safe spaces - but I think that every group is allowed a safe space to talk about stuff.

At the same time, a safe space can become an echo chamber - if views aren't challenged and it just becomes self perpetuating.

I don't think people should be cancelled because their view goes against what other people think. At the same time, I think a company is free to associate or disassociate itself from someone whose views they don't feel represents them. That does throw up a whole load of issues in itself.

I don't know where you draw the line. I worry about radicalisation of people, about the use of rhetoric to turn people against a group, the people who have large platforms and the media who use their platforms to only present certain viewpoints of a group and from one perspective.

I worry that saying 'no debate' and no platforming also turns people against groups.

I worry that we live in a world of Twitter and soundbites where we don't have complex, nuance debates - but literally just a few sentences.

I worry about YouTube where people watch a video by someone, and then gradually go down a rabbit hole of recommended videos that all feed into their beliefs.

I worry that people on all sides of debates just spend their time in echo chambers, feeding off each other, sending themselves links and not listening to other points of view so we become more separated and divided.

I worry that everything is so binary. Debate is shut down by calling people bigots or by calling them activists - and not engaging.

I can't see anyway out of it - and I worry that the Government is trying to add fuel to the fire by stirring up culture wars.

Hitler was elected by people who said there was only one way to think - the universities were shut down and everyone became a nazi (either because it accorded with their views or they wanted a career). Or they left Germany because their views didn't accord with the Government. It was a whole legal and political takeover which rested on "no debate". Germany was not a healthy democracy before the Nazis, and so it had little tradition to fall back on of free speech.

The debate is essential - you don't preserve freedom by saying there are things you can't say.

@chomalangua

Good that you came back but I don't actually understand your position - you have worries, and of course it is a nuanced debate, but actually what do you want to see?

No platforming and a few legal cases have prompted this matter - and it is not a bad thing to remind universities of their right to maintain debate and also uphold freedom of expression within the law. That is fine, and I don't think there is a suggestion that we need to limit debate further than that, is there? Otherwise as you say, we get into the unsayable short of what the law provides.

Someone up thread mentioned how people would feel re. a debate re. Ginger hair people not being allowed to reproduce- well As a working mother with ginger hair and a gingered hair son, I would welcome a debate that said “ this house believes working
mothers are terrible mothers and ginger people should not reproduce” .
Bring it on- I’d have plenty to say to back my corner. Why should I be fearful of such a debate or want it to be no platformed or feel unsafe. I’d relish it. Because it is quite obviously nonsense.
So let holocaust and Covid deniers speak. Both can be pushed back with science and evidence and fact.

I don't think people should be cancelled because their view goes against what other people think. At the same time, I think a company is free to associate or disassociate itself from someone whose views they don't feel represents them. That does throw up a whole load of issues in itself.

Yes, that is a difficult one. A company does have that right. However, should companies have rights that are greater than the democratic rights of individuals? That is a horribly capitalist prioritisation. And the people who have been sacked for the most spurious of wrong-think reasons have tended to be women, which only makes me more cynical about this practice (which often seems to be a PR opportunity coming at the expense of women).

It should also be noted that universities are not companies. They have a legal responsibility to ensure freedom of speech within the law, and some of them have definitely failed to meet those obligations. They have played right into the hands of the government.

I worry that everything is so binary. Debate is shut down by calling people bigots or by calling them activists - and not engaging.

Agreed. That is exactly why universities need to model rigorous and respectful debate, rather than participate in the no-debate, no-engagement culture themselves.

This feels a bit like we should be careful what we wish for here. A lot of people agree with free speech when it's something they agree with (I include myself here. I want Germain Greer to be able to give a speech on feminism, but I'm not keen on Tommy Robinson).

I can see this running into trouble with outsiders pushing offensive speakers onto campuses just to cause trouble, hope they get banned, and then they can sue. It won't necessarily be the nicest people making use of this law.

Good that you came back but I don't actually understand your position - you have worries, and of course it is a nuanced debate, but actually what do you want to see

I don't know.

That's my honest answer.

I think there's massive hypocrisy. There are calls for a Professor to be sacked because of his views on Zionism. Yet I suspect that some of the people who call for people like him to be sacked are also the kind of people who think that other people shouldn't be sacked for expressing a view they agree with.

Either someone should be sacked for holding a viewpoint that others don't agree with or they shouldn't be sacked.

Same for no platforming.

People should have the right to no platform or they shouldn't. It shouldn't depend on the view they hold.

But people also need safe spaces to have discussions without constantly having to ensure that people who don't agree with that discussion also attend.

I think it's very complicated and it's only getting worse.