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

Extradition requires that the substantive offence has an equivalent here. That case also found on appeal a likelihood of breach of the peace. Neither was a year in prison in France disproportionate (personally I think it was excessively lenient).

The flat earth example is bogus. A Holocaust denier would almost certainly have to dispute accounts and histories given by others and call them liars, i.e. libel them. If a Holocaust scholar or professional writer was said to publish lies, that’s obviously likely to be a malicious falsehood. The courts have already held that Holocaust denial is an absurdity and a fiction, so falsity is hardly in question - but unlike flat earth nonsense it raises racial, religious and personal legal issues. I very much doubt that malice would be difficult to show.

It’s not directly relevant, I accept, but we’ll have to disagree about the speech and intention of many, anti-Israel campaigners (not you). Just as one simple example, the Houthis have an official slogan that calls for “death to Israel” and “a curse upon the Jews”. Yet many anti-Israel campaigners are happy to chant in support of Houthis.

But who decides what is an ok opinion and what is not ok?

Thats a crucial part of the problem.

And yeah I think these protests are part of Streisanding so I don't agree with the protesting against speaker you don't like.

Universities would not be forced to invite David Irving. Speakers come to universities when they are invited to do so. If the student union or debating society wanted to invite him, then why not?

Exactly, I agree.
The University proposal gets a bit too close to compelled speech for me.

Which part is close to compelled speech?

I'm pretty sure universities invite chosen speakers; they can't just rock up and demand to speak.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/16

The part where the University is forced to host a speaker invited by students, or discuss certain topics in lectures picked by the students or the lecturer. That means the university as an organisation is compelled to be a mouthpiece for voices they may strongly disagree with. Along with associated brand damage and financial costs.

It's really weird this is being argued as "leftist" because I think my position is more free market/laissez faire. Its up to individual organisations to decide who and what they host. They should not be compelled either way.

Well if that’s as straightforward as it reads and there’s not some exception clause hidden away somewhere else then you may have convinced me that the law is not workable in a practical sense. I mean how can a university possibly platform every single person who requests it? They would potentially have to book years ahead for the more prestigious universities where demand was high.

I’m not convinced by the Irving argument though. I think the problem as I see it is the balance of debate that students are currently being exposed to is way off. So Irving is banned but you can guarantee that those on the left who are denying aspects of 7th October will be being platformed with hardly any pushback at all and any Jewish student who complains will be told “well it’s free speech”.

Also the argument that universities are businesses and therefore can do as they please is strange. The amount of public money going into universities via the student loan system (which everyone knows isn’t a loan for the vast majority of students it will become a state debt) is vast.

At this point I really think this model of university education is failing us all.

Universities exist to examine ideas and develop critical thinking around them; even of ideas you don't necessarily agree with or favour. This is how knowledge develops. Epistemology.

What stops universities from hosting contentious speakers virtually, instead of in person?

Yup, I came on this thread to post exactly that.

Apparently it's dead easy to repeal acts, so no excuses to rid us of the gra.

That means the university as an organisation is compelled to be a mouthpiece for voices they may strongly disagree with.

Compelled by whom?

Signalbox

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

Yes, see the child benefit cap...

Do people actually think this legislation would mean that universities are obliged to invite anyone who asked?

Out of interest Tempest how do you interpret the extract posted above by Janet? I thought it was absurd to say that but it does seem to be how that extract reads. But Ianal so god only knows.

Universities don't have opinions, or at least they shouldn't.

They are a place for scholars, who have tenure, and their students, to discuss all kinds of ideas and opinions and pursue research, no matter how controversial those ideas are.

That is the purpose of the university in society. It can't function unless it allows that kind of discussion. They have been structured to make sure that happens, but increasingly those structures have been undermined.

They have no one to blame but themselves. If Labour looked like they wanted to improve on this legislation, great, but I think it's pretty clear what they want is to be able to maintain ideological controls on universities - their direction of travel generally is to control education under the auspices of the state.

I interpret it within the normal operations of the university. And within that, maybe more important to talk about ideas rather than speakers as the former is likely to be more common.

So if a faculty member for a class, or possibly a student group, wants to bring in a speaker, or discuss certain ideas in class, an there are people (students, outside groups, etc) who try and shut that down, the university if obliged defend the right of the group or faculty member to discuss those ideas.

So back when Lindsey Shepherd in Canada had a class listen to an interview between Jordan Peterson and another person, and was reprimanded for exposing the class to wrongthink, the university, under this legislation, would be obliged to support the discussion of all ideas, and tell the complaining students that they need to understand what universities are for. Unlike what happened in Canada (and the same thing is all over the university world) which is she was reprimanded and threatened.

Random people don't go up to a university and demand to speak in a class or other venue, how would that even work?

Yes. But not at the behest of others. The government should not be directly interfering in that process.

It's bad enough they tied research funding to certain topics, rather than the value of the research itself. Insisting universities "critically analyse" what an outside view wants them to is worse.

By their students, via the Government and Office for Students who would have the power to fine them if they refused to host a speaker and the student complained

That's literally what the act is. It is nonsense.

The move was also welcomed by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which said it supported concerns expressed by the Union of Jewish Students that the act risked enabling antisemitic extremists to access campuses by having an impact on the ability of universities to block them.
Phil Rosenberg, the board’s president, said: “This halt will enable the government to consider how to ensure that freedom of speech is protected without allowing free rein to purveyors of hate speech.”

So if a faculty member for a class, or possibly a student group, wants to bring in a speaker, or discuss certain ideas in class, an there are people (students, outside groups, etc) who try and shut that down, the university if obliged defend the right of the group or faculty member to discuss those ideas.

This is what I assumed the legislation aimed to achieve.

The government never intended to force uninvited speakers onto universities. I'm really not sure where you get that idea from?

It's a shit piece of legislation, as shown by the fact noone knows what it is or does.

A bit like the GRA.

Everyone knows what the GRA does 😂

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DTF1HKrXWt0

Toby Young and Brendan O’Neill discuss the scrapping of the free speech act. Of particular interest is why the argument that the act would allow Holocaust deniers a platform is bogus because holocaust denial is not protected speech under the ECHR and the new act would have been subordinate to the ECHR. So you could have lawfully refused a platform to a Holocaust denier without falling foul of the law.