Free speech at university: Intolerance of intolerance

[politicqxs 358]

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21677038-intolerance-intolerance-students-are-ever-quicker-label-offensive-material-hate-speech?spc=scode&spv=xm&ah=9d7f7ab945510a56fa6d37c30b6f1709

Free speech at university
Intolerance of intolerance

“JUST because you lop off your **** and then wear a dress doesn’t make you a ****ing woman,” believes Germaine Greer, an Australian-born feminist and controversialist. Her views on transs-xuals have persuaded more than 2,800 people to sign a petition calling for her to be banned from giving a talk (on a different subject) at Cardiff University next month. On October 26th Ms Greer indicated that she would cancel her appearance rather than be “screamed at and have things thrown at me”.

It has been a busy term for student censors. Oxford’s student union banned No Offence, a magazine featuring stories defending colonialism and other controversies, from being distributed at its freshers’ fair. Manchester’s union banned two journalists from taking part in a debate on free speech because of their own “transphobic” views. And the Cambridge Union, a debating society, held a members’ referendum (successful, in the end) on its plans to allow Julian Assange of the whistle-blowing WikiLeaks site to speak via video link.

Such challenges to debate are now common. A free-speech index compiled in February by Spiked, an online magazine, found that 135 bans of various sorts had been imposed within university campuses in the previous three years: on songs with offensive lyrics; newspapers that print topless photos on page three; and speakers whose views on everything from abortion to Zionism were considered beyond the pale.

The most zealous censors are not the university authorities but students themselves. Many unions now operate “safe space” policies, imported from American universities, which aim to create environments in which no student feels threatened by ideas deemed harmful. The mere act of inviting Mr Assange, who is accused of rape in Sweden, to appear via video has taken a “visceral, physical toll” on victims of s-xual violence in Cambridge, says Charlotte Chorley, the student union’s women’s officer.

Others say the complainants are merely offended, not harmed. “Offence is a natural part of a liberal society,” argues Edgar Häner, an organiser of the Manchester event that was shut down. “Saying that freshers can’t handle [our] material is patronising,” says Lulie Tanett, a co-editor of No Offence.

The government is curbing speech on another front. New rules came into effect in September requiring universities that host speakers “with extremist views linked to terrorist groups” to ensure that they are challenged by others. If “in any doubt that the risk cannot be fully mitigated [universities] should exercise caution and not allow the event to proceed,” official guidelines say. The original bill, watered down in the House of Lords, had proposed that universities ban all speakers with extremist views, on pain of contempt-of-court charges. The National Union of Students, perhaps surprisingly, is dead against the crackdown. 

 

 

 

[Auro 1,829]

 The world is full of differing viewpoints, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean that they should be banned, I never liked the idea of a safe space, because after college, there will be no safe space to go to, people don't need to be coddled in University, they're studying for the real world

[Miracle 14,068]

 The world is full of differing viewpoints, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean that they should be banned, I never liked the idea of a safe space, because after college, there will be no safe space to go to, people don't need to be coddled in University, they're studying for the real world

I agree that there should be different pointviews, but radical feminism understood as Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is not acceptable at all. Developing a trans-hate propaganda, as well as trans people shaming is absolutely, utterly wrong and -it's obvious- that she should be banned. Come on, it's useful for people to know about different point of views - even those who aren't unacceptable, but promoting transphobia in an university where people gets taught, apart from its degree, at tolerance and real world issues is not the right way to do it. 

The Internet is, somehow, kind of free, as you can write almost whatever you want in a blog. Free books of these ideas could be available in order for these people to express their disgusting ideas

Imagine this is about gay people being enslavered and promoting gay people slavery. Would you be in favour? That's how most transgendered people feel towards people not @accepting their real gender and getting them inside a box

Promoting transphobia is as bad as promoting racism, homophobia or able ism.

I hate when people try to use "freedom of speech", "we live in a free country, man" as an argumnent when it comes to defend their XVI century oppressive ****. You're free to express yourself but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose people your point of views through manipulation' skills or events held as places like schools or universities.

P.S.: Real world isn't a safe place but Universities / education are, in general,  the centerpiece of sharping the human behaviour and making people see the real world and fight against these issues. How are you going to be able to make people fight oppression if they receive f**** transphobia propaganda 

 

 

[TiphEret 1,320]

Well the problem with such banning is that they don't seem to have a set of rules explaining the banning. If we take the example of the papers defending colonialism we don't know the content so maybe they could spread hatred or discriminating view but maybe they wouldn't.

I think the University should respect the free speech of the country. For example I don't like the far right party in France, but as long as they don't spread any hateful message and openly discriminate they are allowed to express their views, and I am allowed to tell them why they are wrong in their views as long as I don't spread any hatred too.

Sure some people will have extremists view, but even "peace" can be seen as extremists so what do we prefer a new sort of censoring because some ideas make you feel uncomfortable which can also restrain your own freedom or speech, or you being grown up not going to the talk if you are sensitive but being allowed to express your own views? 

[Miracle 14,068]

And, as a response to the specifical article, I have to say that most of the "extremist" points of views they're labelling are not damaging or harmful, especially those about abortion, and, possibly (as I don't know further information about this) ideas such as social-anarchism, original communism or gender inequality extreme laws. Extreme isn't a synonym to "damaging"

3e

 

[Auro 1,829]

I agree that there should be different pointviews, but radical feminism understood as Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is not acceptable at all. Developing a trans-hate propaganda, as well as trans people shaming is absolutely, utterly wrong and -it's obvious- that she should be banned. Come on, it's useful for people to know about different point of views - even those who aren't unacceptable, but promoting transphobia in an university where people gets taught, apart from its degree, at tolerance and real world issues is not the right way to do it. 

The Internet is, somehow, kind of free, as you can write almost whatever you want in a blog. Free books of these ideas could be available in order for these people to express their disgusting ideas

Imagine this is about gay people being enslavered and promoting gay people slavery. Would you be in favour? That's how most transgendered people feel towards people not @accepting their real gender and getting them inside a box

Promoting transphobia is as bad as promoting racism, homophobia or able ism.

I hate when people try to use "freedom of speech", "we live in a free country, man" as an argumnent when it comes to defend their XVI century oppressive ****. You're free to express yourself but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose people your point of views through manipulation' skills or events held as places like schools or universities.

P.S.: Real world isn't a safe place but Universities / education are, in general,  the centerpiece of sharping the human behaviour and making people see the real world and fight against these issues. How are you going to be able to make people fight oppression if they receive f**** transphobia propaganda 

 

 

but this isn't just about that woman, they're starting to exclude anything that may offend someone, I'm not saying to reward that woman but they can't censor everything, they're gonna have to realize that everything is gonna trigger someone

[TiphEret 1,320]

I agree that there should be different pointviews, but radical feminism understood as Trans-exclusionary radical feminism is not acceptable at all. Developing a trans-hate propaganda, as well as trans people shaming is absolutely, utterly wrong and -it's obvious- that she should be banned. Come on, it's useful for people to know about different point of views - even those who aren't unacceptable, but promoting transphobia in an university where people gets taught, apart from its degree, at tolerance and real world issues is not the right way to do it. 

The Internet is, somehow, kind of free, as you can write almost whatever you want in a blog. Free books of these ideas could be available in order for these people to express their disgusting ideas

Imagine this is about gay people being enslavered and promoting gay people slavery. Would you be in favour? That's how most transgendered people feel towards people not @accepting their real gender and getting them inside a box

Promoting transphobia is as bad as promoting racism, homophobia or able ism.

I hate when people try to use "freedom of speech", "we live in a free country, man" as an argumnent when it comes to defend their XVI century oppressive ****. You're free to express yourself but that doesn't mean you have the right to impose people your point of views through manipulation' skills or events held as places like schools or universities.

P.S.: Real world isn't a safe place but Universities / education are, in general,  the centerpiece of sharping the human behaviour and making people see the real world and fight against these issues. How are you going to be able to make people fight oppression if they receive f**** transphobia propaganda 

 

 

But if you look at the speech of that woman if you think that she is breaking the law of the country by expressing such views then of course she should be banned. In that case she says that in her opinion transgender aren't women. I can disagree with her but so far apart from being backward thinking it's not directly hateful, she didn't say let's ban transgender people from coming to that university or such and such. If the University was a bit clever they could have invited someone with different views to debate with her and expose how her ideas are reductive. Because the thing is some students probably think like her and if they don't see her arguments being challenged they won't challenged their own views.

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

Sorry, I don't agree with this "feminist" at all ... 

[Goosey 3,017]

Sorry, I don't agree with this "feminist" at all ... 

That's irrelevant.

 

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

That's irrelevant.

 

"Free speech is overrated." - Lady Gaga 

(Sorry, but transphobia is not okay ...) 

[AlphaMonster 1,806]

I think people mistake liberalism with libertarianism too often.

While liberal governments aim to keep functions of government minimized as it is in libertarianism, liberal governments have still obligation to provide equal opportunity by regulating social environment of a state with necessary laws. This includes anti-hate speech too. So by its very definition, Liberalism put emphasis on individual freedom as long as you don't cross any other person's individual freedoms . LIBERALISM SUPPORTS "POSITIVE LIBERTY". 

Libertarianism is much more like anarchism in this sense. In libertarianism, Negative liberty is supported, which is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint... So to give an example, in a libertarian system, as long as you don't physically harm someone, or their property, you would be free to do whatever you want. LIBERTARIANISM SUPPORTS "NEGATIVE LIBERTY". 

There is practically no country that is totally libertarian. So arguing that these bans, restrictions are against freedom is against the very definition of liberalism's perception of liberty. Because liberalism argues that positive liberty is the only form of fully functioning negative liberty, because negative liberty does not take people's respect to each other's liberty and to each other's dignity into account, and totally destroys equality of opportunity.

[TiphEret 1,320]

I think people mistake liberalism with libertarianism too often.

While liberal governments aim to keep functions of government minimized as it is in libertarianism, liberal governments have still obligation to provide equal opportunity by regulating social environment of a state with necessary laws. This includes anti-hate speech too. So by its very definition, Liberalism put emphasis on individual freedom as long as you don't cross any other person's individual freedoms . LIBERALISM SUPPORTS "POSITIVE LIBERTY". 

Libertarianism is much more like anarchism in this sense. In libertarianism, Negative liberty is supported, which is primarily concerned with freedom from external restraint... So to give an example, in a libertarian system, as long as you don't physically harm someone, or their property, you would be free to do whatever you want. LIBERTARIANISM SUPPORTS "NEGATIVE LIBERTY". 

There is practically no country that is totally libertarian. So arguing that these bans, restrictions are against freedom is against the very definition of liberalism's perception of liberty. Because liberalism argues that positive liberty is the only form of fully functioning negative liberty, because negative liberty does not take people's respect to each other's liberty and to each other's dignity into account, and totally destroys equality of opportunity.

I agree with you but if you look closely at some of the cases cited I am not sure that all are encouraging hatred which could explain the banning, to me it seems that if doesn't fit the new progressive mindset of some student union it shouldn't be heard. For example zionism, some could be against and some pro zionist but so far with little arguments about banning such speech it seems that people are being overly sensitive because it doesn't promote hatred as such, it's not like they say "let's kill anti zionist". I am not even going to comment on topless photos, again we have little information about such cases, so even if the transphobic views on some speakers were problematic and this could justify the banning of this talks some are just being overly PC and afraid of hurting someones view and honestly maybe people being that sensitive aren't ready to attend normal debate as the point is challenge someone else opinion. 

"on songs with offensive lyrics; newspapers that print topless photos on page three; and speakers whose views on everything from abortion to Zionism were considered beyond the pale."

Regarding Julien Assange, it's hypocritical he hasn't been convicted and we know the whole story is dodgy, we don't know if he is innocent or not and that's sort of disgusting to assume he is guilty already... 

The problem with such censorship is that it's not based on something measurable but just if some union feel it is offensive or not. And clearly this is totally subjective

[AlphaMonster 1,806]

I agree with you but if you look closely at some of the cases cited I am not sure that all are encouraging hatred which could explain the banning, to me it seems that if doesn't fit the new progressive mindset of some student union it shouldn't be heard. For example zionism, some could be against and some pro zionist but so far with little arguments about banning such speech it seems that people are being overly sensitive because it doesn't promote hatred as such, it's not like they say "let's kill anti zionist". I am not even going to comment on topless photos, again we have little information about such cases, so even if the transphobic views on some speakers were problematic and this could justify the banning of this talks some are just being overly PC and afraid of hurting someones view and honestly maybe people being that sensitive aren't ready to attend normal debate as the point is challenge someone else opinion. 

"on songs with offensive lyrics; newspapers that print topless photos on page three; and speakers whose views on everything from abortion to Zionism were considered beyond the pale."

Regarding Julien Assange, it's hypocritical he hasn't been convicted and we know the whole story is dodgy, we don't know if he is innocent or not and that's sort of disgusting to assume he is guilty already... 

The problem with such censorship is that it's not based on something measurable but just if some union feel it is offensive or not. And clearly this is totally subjective

I agree with the fact that safe space - tries to maintain equality is sometimes misinterpreted in a way that Liberal organizations started to perceive particular characteristic of certain group of people who have been discriminated irrationality in the past for these characteristics are untouchable in any context. Which is ridiculous, dogmatic and very normative. Essentially, they become what they oppose when they do it as title suggest.

But I disagree with that such regulations don't have clear lines. Regulations should start where there is an irrational attempt to create a hatred towards a specific demographic... 

I think banning zionist speech don't make any sense. It is like banning pan-slavic, pan-turkic speeches etc. Nationalist speech is not necessarily racist. 

Even for transs-xual issue, one can scientifically argue about transs-xuality, or homos-xuality too. No topic is untouchable, current scientific truth was once a claim-thesis against old scientific truth. But creating hated towards transs-xual people is such different issue. In such case, one attacks right to live in dignity of trans individuals; also such speech would have no scientific basis which shows the differentiation of it from a rational discussion because science is not personal. 

In this issue, which ,I believe ,is mostly clarified above, there is only particular problem left. Religion. Biggest source of conflict of the world. I am an atheist, so I am biased in this probably but I think any claim that is targeting a certain demographic on the basis of religion should be banned such as Westboro Baptist Church. Because religion has nothing to do with rationality, it is spiritual, abstract. In a laic countries, code of conducts for speech should also be based on secular perspective in my opinion.

[TiphEret 1,320]

I agree with the fact that safe space - tries to maintain equality is sometimes misinterpreted in a way that Liberal organizations started to perceive particular characteristic of certain group of people who have been discriminated irrationality in the past for these characteristics are untouchable in any context. Which is ridiculous, dogmatic and very normative. Essentially, they become what they oppose when they do it as title suggest.

But I disagree with that such regulations don't have clear lines. Regulations should start where there is an irrational attempt to create a hatred towards a specific demographic... 

I think banning zionist speech don't make any sense. It is like banning pan-slavic, pan-turkic speeches etc. Nationalist speech is not necessarily racist. 

Even for transs-xual issue, one can scientifically argue about transs-xuality, or homos-xuality too. No topic is untouchable, current scientific truth was once a claim-thesis against old scientific truth. But creating hated towards transs-xual people is such different issue. In such case, one attacks right to live in dignity of trans individuals; also such speech would have no scientific basis which shows the differentiation of it from a rational discussion because science is not personal. 

In this issue, which ,I believe ,is mostly clarified above, there is only particular problem left. Religion. Biggest source of conflict of the world. I am an atheist, so I am biased in this probably but I think any claim that is targeting a certain demographic on the basis of religion should be banned such as Westboro Baptist Church. Because religion has nothing to do with rationality, it is spiritual, abstract. In a laic countries, code of conducts for speech should also be based on secular perspective in my opinion.

You made very valid point especially regarding the first part, some association on campus that pretend to provide safe space are sometimes policing way too much and in a way being exclusive instead of inclusive. Ideally the idea of a safe space is that people feel safe to express their opinion even if they are different as long as they don't spread any hatred. But sometimes people will jump to the excuse of you being offensive when you simply have a diverging opinion. I think the student union should make public the criteria they have to allow speaker or not and how they may differ from laws of the country (as long as respecting them but for example some could say they don't invite any religious group to speak as you mentioned)

Regarding religion it's interesting, I don't know what to think, at my uni for example the different union such as muslim or sikh and such are free to organise event that people can choose to attend. I guess as long as the event is focusing on religion it's ok but if you would invite a christian group to a talk about homos-xuality indeed it could spread a message of exclusion towards homos-xuals.. I don't know it's quite complex. 

But overall my point was just that sjw are sometimes guilty of censoring others in the name of being tolerant.

[Goosey 3,017]

"Free speech is overrated." - Lady Gaga

I was disappointed Gaga would make such a puerile, vacuous statement.