Labour to scrap Freedom of Speech Act

[Signalbox]

Free Speech Union is threatening to bring Judicial Review proceedings.
This does feel pretty undemocratic. Is this a sign of things to come?

https://x.com/SpeechUnion/status/1816771547215835345

Statement from Bridgett Phillipson...

Lastly, I have written to colleagues separately about my decision to stop further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, in order to consider options, including its repeal. I am aware of concerns that the Act would be burdensome on providers and on the OfS, and I will confirm my long term plans as soon as possible. To enable students to thrive in higher education, I welcome the OfS’s plans to introduce strengthened protections for students facing harassment and sexual misconduct, including relating to the use of non-disclosure agreements in such cases by universities and colleges.

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2024-07-26/hcws26

"Universities" are a bunch of very disparate organisations with the same purpose. They don't all get together and decide what messages they are putting forwards.

Personally I don't like the thought of the Government directly controlling what can and can't be discussed at universities at all. They should keep their beaks out.

Also now students are paying £££ to go there. The students are the customers and of course are going to feel entitled to have a say in what is covered. They can also vote with their feet and not attend universities that host unpopular speakers or amplify messages they don't like. For example, if I was a student today I wouldn't choose a university that featured Milo Yiannopoulos on its list of speakers.

Of course universities are going to pander to students. That's a consequence of using tuition fees for funding.

Scolding and bossy. What a shocker.

This is mostly completely irrelevant. I don’t give a shit whether universities come in different flavours or whether students pay or what they pay. Universities are public institutions. They should not allow the selective promotion of arguments (particularly not half-wit arguments about men willing themselves into being women).

The fact - and it is a fact - is that universities regularly act as venues (including for fundraisers) for points of view that invite opposition, like trans crap and unpleasant anti-Jewish propaganda.

The Holocaust deniers argument is bullshit: they’re already there, under a different banner.

Stop defending this.

I'll use whatever word I like in the English language to express myself.

'Scolding' is not misogynistic, it means 'an angry rebuke or reprimand' and either sex can do it.

a scold is a woman who often rebukes. Like 'a nag', its an insult reserved for women. As in 'a scolds bridle'.

So the word "a scold" referred to a woman who often rebuked, and in mediaeval times a "scolds bridle" was used to torture women. But "scolding" isn't a misogynistic term

If you look it up I think you will find it's a behaviour far more often attributed to women than men, as well as the historical context. I consider people going on about being "scolded" by other women to be misogynistic, in much the same way as "nagging", "shrieking", "hysterical".

Really annoys me it's used so much on this board just to shut women down.

Its hard for me to read this kind of account:
https://www.lancastercastle.com/history-heritage/further-articles/the-scolds-bridle/

And not see scold/scolding as inherently misogynist. Like hysterical.

Interesting juxtaposition of the use of "scolding" to shut up women on a thread about freedom of speech.

You're arguing against yourself.

You've just explained why the poster used that word.

Because some people come here to tell off women in a way that they wouldn't tell off men. It is that action itself that's misogynistic, not using the word 'scold' to describe it.

If a man referred to a woman specifically as 'scolding', that would be a different set of circumstances, and definitely misogynistic - because like you say, that is akin to calling a woman's opinion 'nagging' and is used to belittle.

The pp did not do that.

Really annoys me it's used so much on this board just to shut women down.

Omg you are such a monumental hypocrite.

The word is misogynistic. That doesn't change depending on the context. Women can be and often are misogynistic. Complaining other women are "scolding" when they disagree meets that definition. And it happens on here a lot.

Disagreeing isn't "shutting down". Insulting and belittling other posters is.

Yes quite right. I apologise.
I shouldn’t have called you a hypocrite or bossy. I don’t like name calling it’s a shitty way to debate.

Disagreeing isn't "shutting down". Insulting and belittling other posters is.

CassieMaddox what was the intention of the biscuit you sent Signalbox ?

Thank you.

It's my reply when I've read it but don't want to be aggro in reply

May I suggest you re read what you've posted here as though a man had written it? "How would Phillipson be in any position to know anything about the bill" - well I would imagine she's read it, and perhaps applied some critical thinking, and most likely discussed it with others in her field.

In terms of freedom of speech, we do actually have other laws which protect us.

I read this initially and was worried. BUT...

I think existing law probably should cover a lot of these areas anyway and this law is problematic in that it could be used to undermine other existing protections.

We already can say things that are controversial, or even go counter to other laws, as long as there is a point to them that's effectively in the public interest.

It's a complex area where I think the law falls over if we aren't careful.

https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1817125868721893705?t=LD-Qqz7r2dL88OC50hnoaw&s=19

Been waiting 3 years for result of @officestudents investigation. Gave deposition last year. Have been interviewed by head of OFS. I am hearing that Sussex were about to receive massive fine. It would be marvellous to find out whether pausing of Higher Education Act is related.

What difference does Phillipson's or my sex make to the comment? I'm asking who is advising her and on what basis?

She is clearly ignoring all of the feminist academics who have documented the harm that has been done to them due to universities' unwillingness to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech. A number of those academics were either involved in creating the Bill or actively support the passing of the Act into law.

If you are unaware of the issues for feminists in UK universities, Maya Forstater compiled a helpful list of all the academics and students who have faced abuse, blacklisting and threats simply for being feminists in UK universities.

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1817306280291192977

@CassieMaddox
Unfortunately on MN using a biscuit is aggressive, albeit perhaps more passive-aggressive. It also causes readers to have to guess at your actual desired response - are you calling the poster to whom you responded a See You Next Tuesday; telling them to Eff Off/Eff Themselves^; suggesting they might perhaps consider playing in the traffic; or recommending remedial anatomy classes [as you consider an inability to distinguish between your glutes & your cubitus an issue] etc etc?

It’s fascinating you’ve somehow missed that fact yet not the emoji itself. If you don’t want other users to think you are being [passive-]aggressive &/or have no argument but insult, then I’d suggest rethinking your choice 🤷‍♀️

^I know we’re free to be as profane as we wish on here; this is as profane as I wish to be.

When the usual disruptors pile into a thread supporting a minister’s decision it tells you that the legislation would have helped level the playing field and encourage more balanced discourse, which the TRAs loathe. Interesting.

Not sure I necessarily agree with this. I think the legislation is flaw, whilst in many respects agreeing with it's principle.

We need to make good law. Even laws we like the sound of. Bad law has unintended consequences which aren't necessarily helpful and don't necessarily further our objectives.

This is conspiracy theory nonsense. The flaws in the legislation have been well rehearsed. It was never more than a gimmick which would create difficulties for universities in return for some good Daily Mail headlines.

Labour voted against the Act. They’ve now received a mandate to be in Government - so of course they’re not going to just mindlessly commence legislation they opposed.

What are these flaws? Have you actually read the Act?

Do really think there are no academics and students being excluded, intimidated and having their views stifled? Incredible.