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.

remind universities of their right to maintain debate and also uphold freedom of expression within the law

It's not a right, it's a legal responsibility (Education (No 2) Act 1986 and the Human Rights Act 1998). They can be prosecuted for not ensuring freedom of expression.

I can see this running into trouble with outsiders pushing offensive speakers onto campuses

Outsiders can't demand campus space. Speakers have to be invited by a member of the university. There is also a vetting process, which is designed to pinpoint when freedom of speech might step beyond its lawful boundaries.

There is such a massive irony on the Daily Mail

Article 1) Gavin Williamson brings in free speech laws. People should say what they want. Bring it on say the commentators, people should say what they want to say without consequence

Article 2) Someone says something controversial but they are from the Left. Sack him, say the commentators. He shouldn't say that without facing the consequences.

Cognitive dissonance.

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.

Safe spaces are fine for support groups (e.g. for Black students, for women going through the menopause). They are not appropriate in terms of the actual business of the university, which is the production of knowledge through rigorous research, scrutiny and debate.

I don't really buy this "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach" argument, or the "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" argument which is often deployed.

Being free to say something quietly in your own home (if that - I think Scotland are trying to bring hate speech laws into the home too), is not really freedom of speech.

I mean yes, individual universities, student unions, publishers etc can choose not to give a platform to certain speakers. But it's naive to pretend that this has no bearing on the status of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means being able to say things publicly, and if institutions (including social media companies) all clamp down on certain views being expressed (or any views whatsoever being expressed by someone who has said the "wrong" thing in the past), then yes freedom of speech is weakened.

No-platforming sounds OK when it's someone you disagree with being no-platformed. The next day, the same mechanism is used to silence someone you think is perfectly reasonable, and you realise it's a tool that can be wielded by anyone with the power, be they goodie or baddie or mercenary. (And yes, if you can no-platform someone, then you do have some power.)

It seems to me that the concept of a hate crime (and its offshoot, the "non crime hate incident"), while well-intentioned, has paved the way for a lot of this. All you have to do is call something "hate speech" and it's effectively criminalised. Don't think that only reasonable, good people will make use of this.

Outsiders can't demand campus space. Speakers have to be invited by a member of the university. There is also a vetting process, which is designed to pinpoint when freedom of speech might step beyond its lawful boundaries

And that's the difficulty. When does freedom of speech step beyond its lawful boundaries?

I don't think it's defined in law very well, is it?

Those arguing for "deplatforming" - well, I think your views are wrong.
Therefore, I'm going to petition MN until you are kicked off the platform.

I would much much rather we counter bad ideas with reason and fact rather than raw power and censoriousness.

Debate and discussion is how we find our way to the truth.
The only other way is having "truth" handed down from on high.
Truth wont be about facts we can nearly all come to agree on, but rather what those in power say it is.
Power isnt always political in the narrow sense
it can be cultural too, as we have seen

What if a Student Union decided to start no-platforming speakers who champion gay rights, or civil rights, or whatever particular position anyone wants to suggest?

Are people in favour of no-platforming happy with that?

@GCAcademic - I think Article 10 of the ECHR also applies to universities as public bodies, in addition to that provision. It is this which is lurking behind the Government's decision. I do not think there would be very good arguments (on legal basis) against - it will formally bolster that obligation which you mention, but Article 10 has to be read with the Education Act and read in an ECHR compatible way.

@InspiralCoalescenceRingdown

What if a Student Union decided to start no-platforming speakers who champion gay rights, or civil rights, or whatever particular position anyone wants to suggest?

Are people in favour of no-platforming happy with that?

Our students union rejected a motion to protect the rights of students from Hong Kong to protest against China's encroachments on HK's democracy. Lots of the Chinese students turned up and voted against it. There have been some nasty incidents, including credible threats of violence, against students from HK on campus. All it takes is the mobilisation of enough individuals to counter the usual student apathy re. student union votes, and this is what can happen. So your scenario isn't entirely implausible.

This is the full paper now published. It references Selina Todd:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/961537/Higherreducationfreeespeechanddacademicfreedomwebbversion_.pdf

This is frightening:

A shocking finding from a recent study by King’s College London was that a quarter of students saw violence as an acceptable response to some forms of speech – and indeed we have seen this played out in the appalling scenes in London, when Jewish societies invited speakers who other students did not approve of.

Interesting reading

As part of that:

HEPs therefore have a legal duty to consider these factors when taking decisions, including in relation to free speech and academic freedom on campus.

This does not mean that lawful speech which may cause offence should be prohibited or even discouraged, but that HEPs should consider a range of ways to ensure that discussions on campus, particularly those including controversial or sensitive topics, take place in a way that is conducive to encouraging good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and people who do not.

The promotion of values of free speech and tolerance of different views may form part of this consideration. Encouraging groups with different opinions to engage with those with whom they disagree can often lead to greater levels of mutual understanding and respect in comparison to attempts to silence alternate viewpoints.

And on page 15 (Sect 33)

The legal duties on HEPs in relation to freedom of speech and
academic freedom do not cover unlawful speech. There are a range
of circumstances in which speech may be in breach of criminal law,
including:

speech causing fear or provocation of violence
;
• acts intended or likely to stir up hatred on grounds of race,
religion or sexual orientation
;
• speech amounting to a terrorism related offence
; and

causing a person harassment, alarm, or distress
, where this would constitute an offence under the Public Order Act 1986

You have to work very hard, beyond a reasonable doubt, to commit a crime with speech. Academic discussion in most cases wouldn't even engage the test let alone pass it.

Universities should have policies that students who issue threats or act violently are suspended and referred to the police. It is unbelievable that they would imagine violence is a reasonable response to speech. That is actually criminal!

The King's College Study

www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/freedom-of-expression-in-uk-universities.pdf

It is unbelievable that they would imagine violence is a reasonable response to speech

That wasn't the question from the study. The question appears to have been twisted.

The question was:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement?

If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views

Which could be interpreted as someone in public saying hateful, racist comments.

That's a different question to about a response to a speech. A speech could be included in that question, but so could lots of other scenarios.

Apparently 20% of the general public agree with that as well

You can't reasonably make the case that someone making a racist remark for example can be hit as a reasonable response. It isn't. One isn't likely to be crime, the other certainly is! These students (and indeed anyone who shares the mindset) are literally the opposite of intellectual, but are justifying thuggery.

You can't reasonably make the case that someone making a racist remark for example can be hit as a reasonable response

Some people would see violence against someone who is being racist as acceptable. You can see how some people respond with violence to many things at the drop of a hat. There are people out there who will attack anyone for any reason.

You would agree though that the statement in the study is different to the statement 'Violence is acceptable as a response to some forms of speech'

All I've said is what the law of the country is -which is, even if engaging in "hate speech" (and lets be clear, that is not a standard that any individual is going to be able to make as the law stands) then no violent act is an acceptable response. It would not be a defence that would be valid.

Hate speech as a crime has to be proved so beyond a reasonable doubt. By 12 others considering it in a jury. I doubt therefore that anyone who answered this question had much in mind except their own definition of "hate speech" or even more vaguely, racially charged remarks.

What if the "hate speech" was TWAM, the speaker was a petite female and the person objecting was a 6'7" rugby playing male?

Violence is never acceptable and the paper reflects the survey question IMO.

Killick - I think what Pukka is suggesting is a totalitarian state. You may only have one set of officially approved views. If you deviate then off to a correction centre. Some of the voices here tonight feel very intolerant (under the guise of touchy freely tolerance).

@JackSparrowsTribute

I get the sense that this is trying to stem the woke cancel culture and view it as a good thing. I believe strongly in freedom of speech - whether I agree with the view expressed, or not - and this should help support it. Well, fingers crossed anyway.

Agree with this.