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

😂
I think its more totalitarian for the government to dictate the activities of universities, but each to their own

I'm more "small state" than that

I hope you remember that when the government starts with the hate crime laws.
The Freedom of Speech Act expects universities to abide by the law. Freedom of speech and the Equality Act are their to protect individuals.

So would you really avoid a uni just because they hosted a speaker you didn't like?

If i was a student choosing a university I would stay away from one hosting Milo Yiannopoulos because I wouldn't want to study somewhere that tolerated misogyny and sexism.

I think there is a common misunderstanding of "hate crime laws". It doesn't mean "hate" becomes a crime. It means a reported crime can be recorded as motivated or aggravated by hate and sentenced accordingly. I personally have no issue with that. I think someone who assaults a stranger because they think they are gay should be sentenced more harshly than someone who assaults am acquaintance who they think stole their partner, for example. But thats largely irrelevant to the university freedom of speech act.

There have been successful prosecutions of Holocaust denial online as communications offences. Such a speech in person is also likely to be an offence under the religious hatred legislation.

There would be very little difficulty in a university rightly saying that the likelihood of criminal offence is so high that they would be justified in opposing such speech as unlawful.

In any event, to put it beyond any doubt the simplest answer would be to make Holocaust denial a criminal matter in its own right.

There’s plenty of antisemitic speech regularly pumped out on university campuses, particularly in relation to ‘zionists’ and a wish for the destruction of Israel. Do you oppose that?

Unfortunately as their finances are now the business model, this impacts on how they are run.

Even Universities say this, and this is how most students see them.

The courses they undertake are a commodity, and as the purchaser they think their rights take precedent over quaint old fashioned notions of free speech.

Free speech impinges on their right to feel "safe", and as the purchaser can demand this is not threatened by people who have different ideas than their own.

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm getting the feeling that Labour just want to scrap Tory laws, no matter what. They had to follow the Cass recommendations, or look barmy. I'm really, really not saying that the Tories are great, just that it seems petty to scrap laws they introduced, just because it's possible.

Under the guise of politeness and good manners, free speech and the freedom to dissent is curtailed, exemplified by Labour scrapping the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. In its place we have a coarsening of language and promotion of a post-modernism that can best be described as joyless decadence. We must renew.

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/kemi-badenoch-people-wont-vote-for-us-if-we-dont-know-what-we-want-to-be-btfpbf95m

can also be read at https://archive.ph/Ftvxo

(NB most of this article is about why she is standing to be leader of the Tory party - I found most of the language in it bizarre - and the theme - and wondered is some PR agency has been brought it to mould her to some focus group outcome. Sorry derail)

I bet they don’t scrap/ repeal any legislation that the Tories brought in to crack down on public protest.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/08/labour-urged-to-say-whether-it-would-scrap-new-anti-protest-laws

What "religious hatred" law is that please?

Exactly. This is the issue, and this is why the new act is fairly pointless.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

So firstly, as you acknowledge the Communications Act only applies to online or electronic communications, not to speaking at an event.

Second, the only case I could find on this, Chabloz, was not really about holocaust denial per se. That case involved grossly offensive mocking of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The case makes clear that had the defendant engaged in an academic or 'factual' discussion about whether the Holocaust happened, that would not have fallen foul of the Communications Act.

The existing legislation on Religious Hatred only applies in respect of words which are threatening. Again, that would not cover an event at which someone purports to give an academic or historical repudiation of the occurrence of the Holocaust.

So no - holocaust denial is lawful speech in the UK. There are countries where it is not, but the UK is not one of them. And as lawful speech, the Act in question would give someone like David Irving the right to demand a platform at universities, and to sue those universities which denied him one.

Quite!

In fact I'd suggest something quite the opposite may be at play. Gaza protestors want to have the freedom to protest in any way they choose, and be permitted to continue to say things which might fall foul of the proposed law.

Only the 'wrong' sort of people must have their speech suppressed.

And as lawful speech, the Act in question would give someone like David Irving the right to demand a platform at universities, and to sue those universities which denied him one.

Don be daft. This act wouldn’t have obliged universities to give a platform to everyone who demanded one. This is an absurd interpretation.

Seems to be going the same way as American university campuses....such as Portland State - which Peter Boghassian featured on a number of occasions, in his 'thought experiment' exercises. He used to be a professor of Philosophy there. He quit calling it a 'Social Justice Factory'

In his resignation letter, published online, Boghossian said university administrators had continuously limited free speech, and favored viewpoints focused on racial equity, social justice and similar ideologies.

(3)The objective in subsection (2) includes securing that—
(a)the use of any premises of the provider is not denied to any individual or body on grounds specified in subsection (4), and
(b)the terms on which such premises are provided are not to any extent based on such grounds.

(4)The grounds referred to in subsection (3)(a) and (b) are—
(a)in relation to an individual, their ideas or opinions;
(b)in relation to a body, its policy or objectives or the ideas or opinions of any of its members.

Read that again.

The use of any premises of the provider is not denied to any individual or body...in relation to an individual, their ideas or opinions.

There’s also a Scottish case which lead to extradition for a Holocaust denier.

The likelihood of a Holocaust denier not threatening is pretty low. And the likelihood of a Holocaust denier not defaming some person - like a politician, writer, historian, survivor, survivor’s family member etc etc - is also very low. Holocaust denial inherently requires that many people are called liars. For some of those people an action in malicious falsehood would be easily arguable too. It’s been held to be a strict liability tort in its statutory form. In some cases it would also be possible to make a case in harassment by speech, depending on reference to individuals.

”Unlawful” encompasses criminal
offences and civil wrongs.

Barring a Holocaust denier wouldn’t be difficult on the basis of apprehended unlawful speech. And quite right too, of course.

But why have you completely ignored my questions? Why not pass an Act making Holocaust denial an offence? It’s not as if Labour doesn’t have the majority to do what it wants. That would be a public good inside and outside universities.

And do you accept that there’s plenty of antisemitism expressed every day at universities? Do you accept that a pro-Israel speaker is likely to be shunned by university authorities or by student bodies?

Why so keen - quite rightly - to oppose Holocaust denial but so unwilling to oppose other forms of antisemitism?

So "hate crime" requires another crime to exist.
"Stirring up religious hatred" requires threatening words or behaviour.

Holocaust denial is not unlawful. So this new law would enable a university to be sued of it banned a holicaust denier from speaking. Or a misogynist. Or someone talking about the problem of being a "minor attracted person".

I think that's exactly what it does It gives students the right to sue if their "lawful free speech" is suppressed. UK has very few anti-free speech laws so in effect that does mean all kinds of people you find objectionable would have the right to talk at universities.

Extradition for something that is unlawful in another country is not the same thing as it being unlawful speech in this country.

The claim about defamation and malicious falsehood are just wrong, I'm afraid. Saying you disagree with the view of other academics is not defamatory nor is it a malicious falsehood. That is the case where there is a legitimate academic debate to be had - but also where there isn't.

If I were to give a speech saying the world is flat, it would not amount to a malicious falsehood against everyone who says it is round.

There is simply no argument that holocaust denial is unlawful speech.

On your question - I absolutely abhor anti-semitism. I don't agree with your conflation with opposition to a pro-Israel speaker and anti-semitism. I consider one very frequent anti-semitic trope to be the conflation of judaism with the State of Israel. That is anti-semitic when people use it to blame Jewish people more broadly for the wrongs of Israel, and I consider it similarly anti-semitic when it is done to paint opposition to the actions of Israel as inherently anti-semitic.

That's not to say that there isn't anti-semitism in the movement against Israel's actions, and I consider anti-zionism (if defined as opposition to the existence of the State of Israel) to to be anti-semitic in itself. But opposing a speaker who plans to defend the actions of Israel in Gaza is not inherently anti-semitic.

Not just students - anyone.

If a university offers its venues for hire - as most do - they would not be able to refuse a booking from David Irving under this legislation.

Making a bogeyman out of David Irving whilst far worse, and far more direct, anti semitism goes unchecked on university campuses every day.

Censorship is not always as effective as people think.

Grifters like Ike could use process to get a wider audience through litigation than if they merely been allowed to speak on campus in the first place or were just quietly no platformed by the university. By banning you make something forbidden fruit. It's like catnip. That holds it's own attraction which some people feed on which it wouldn't have if you just let people get on with it.

A speaker who would have merely been received as a poor speaker and crackpot then becomes persecuted and an anti authority figure. The legislation would apply the effect of that if they were refused a platform. That goes counter to the aims of everyone but extremists.

So on principle I don't like what people might say, but I fundamentally am against censorship. Equally I don't think legislation to prevent no platforming is necessarily good for free speech either because it doesn't encourage good debate on the subject, which may or may not have a point. Why? Because all that's talked about is the ban and how it's not fair. All it does is amplify the most problematic of speakers who otherwise would have flown under the radar. You also have the issue when you start to block certain speakers, they will seek these type of platform more because it gives them legitimacy. If you just let anyone and everyone speak you don't have this issue. People either then turn up or don't. The more you Barbara Streisand a speaker, the better it is for their bottom line. Ultimately if you hire a hall to speak you need to cost your costs - you are more likely to do that with publicity.

We can't stop people from having views or being exposed to unpleasant views. Cos the internet. So I'm not sure why we are so precious about it on campus.

We have other legislation about incitement to hatred and harassment and defamation which covers a lot of the worst areas anyway.

Think about what's happened to numerous records that were banned from playlists or top of the pops?

This is a discussion about particular legislation.

Legislation that would compel universities to give David Irving a platform.

Hence why he is discussed.

I used to think that. I now don't.

There is a fundamental difference between allowing someone to speak, and compelling organisations to give them a platform (and compelling those organisations to pay for the attendant security costs).

Freedom has to cut both ways.

Freedom to express your ideas - fine. But there should also be freedom to decide how you want to use your organisation and your property, and you should not be compelled to provide a megaphone for abhorrent views to be aired.