Can anyone explain this passage to me, please?

[JellySlice]

The second paragraph in the screenshot:

Is it saying that Spiked consider having
guidelines for dealing with bullying,
bans on transphobic material
and
policies of zero tolerance to sexual harassment
to be a bad thing? How far do they consider Freedom of Speech to go?

Sounds like they think "anything goes".

How far do they consider Freedom of Speech to go?

Many people consider it to be an absolute right. That there must be no limit on what anyone can say so there should be not prohibition on being able to speak in favour extreme racism, Holocaust denial, and all the rest.

I'm always wary of people who speak from positions of complete certainty.

Yes. I think it needs to be looked at in the context of the University trend towards 'no platforming'. There are two conflicting ideologies - one being that Universities should be places for learning, and that learning will inevitably involve hearing, reading and interacting with views which oppose your own. The other being that Universities should be safe spaces and that students should be able to control what they see, hear and learn.

To me, the Spiked criteria are intended to highlight the confusion that reigns when a University tries to forge a middle path - by no-platforming some speakers (ideas) but not others. As horrible as it may be to allow a speaker who proposes sexual harassment (such as the delightful Roosh V), if you ban him you are also potentially banning a speaker like Germaine Greer, because students may not like her brand of feminism and her views on trans issues.

Is that phrasing from spiked themselves? If so it seems dumb.

Just having an anti bullying policy is clearly not a risk to freedom of speech. Having a policy which defines opinions as bullying is the concern.

I suspect the last bit about bullying etc is suspect. Some consider the mere criticism of transgender etc bullying.
Free Speech University Rankings (FSUR) is back.spiked’s groundbreaking analysis of free speech in the UK academy has published its fourth annual report, and it shows that campus censorship isn’t going away. Our survey, ranking 115 UK universities using our traffic-light system, shows that54 per cent of universities now actively censor speech, 40 per cent stifle speech through excessive regulation, and just six per cent are truly free, open places. What’s more, in some areas, the severity of restrictions seems to be increasing. We found that almost half of all institutions attempt to censor or chill criticism of religion and transgenderism. There are blasphemies on campus, new and old, that students commit at their peril. Read the2018 results.

Traffic-light ranking system:

RED:

has banned and actively censored ideas on campus

AMBER:

has chilled free speech through intervention

GREEN:

has a hands-off approach to free speech

No-platforming is not a new thing. It was SU policy when I was at uni in the 80s.

I have very mixed feelings about no-platforming. No opinion or belief should be an untouchable sacred cow. There must always be the opportunity for rebuttal. Yet often it is the loudest/most agressive/wealthiest voice that influences the most people.

As a member of a minority, I benefitted from my uni's no-platforming of certain speakers, as it meant that I was kept physically safe from people who would have come out of events fired up with the approval from inspirational speakers to attack me.

But that tips into anti-bullying policies. The difference between expressing personal beliefs and imposing them upon others.

Surely bullying and sexual harassment are not issues of free speech, but of restricting the personal freedoms of others?