UK Universities: Is free speech under threat? | Hacker News Reader

UK Universities: Is free speech under threat?

bbc.co.uk

48 pointsDanBC34 comments

I find it surprising that the article makes no mention of the suppression of debate on Israel/Palestine in UK universities.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/academics-...

"certain" students, "certain" speakers, "certain" discussions - I just can't hear the word "certain" any more without assuming that what I'm reading is yet another angsty, hand-wringing, paranoid-tinged screed about Things These Days, with no specific target, just this anger about these "certain" things that these "certain" people do.

Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though China really does. Universities are supposed to be a place of shared knowledge and diverse perspectives. Another example Berkeley, a school which, according to USA Today, "has become known more recently for its violent demonstrations between those with opposing viewpoints." Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking one particular person/university.

Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though China really does.

The full text of that example from the article is:

"At the University of Sheffield, Chinese students complained about a film showing state discrimination against Tibetans in China containing an offensive phrase. It was replaced with a different film, still showing discrimination against Tibetans."

It seems to me the last sentence there is rather important for context.

Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking one particular person/university.

Well, yes, and the overall statistics it presented strongly suggest that the answer to the question in the headline -- "Is free speech under threat?" -- is "No, not very much."

"No, not very much."

So, yes?

It is more specifically the case that the idea of free speech as a prized element of a society is under threat, than the actual practice of free speech. We need to be mindful of separate things: actual individual free speech events happening, laws about speech, and society's consideration of free speech as a virtue aren't all the same "free speech" thing.

But who is threatening the virtue? Who is The Real Threat To Freedom Here! I think it's actually just various people in various political groups, from progressive students at universities to people with actual power like NY States's Cuomo with his radical anti-BDS laws and executive orders.

I like the distinction here. I find the "no platforming" question the most troublesome, because there should be freedom of association and one should not be forced to provide a venue for views that they disagree with. But at the same time, there is a point where limiting access to a venue has a real detrimental effect on free speech.

Universities have an obligation to provide a wide variety of dissenting views and not be eco chambers. But at the same time they have limited space and so they must, at some level, pick and choose which speakers get access to those venues. How does one choose which ideas are valuable enough to get access to limited space?

It's mind-boggling that it has to be limited. What are universities for? Every day every university should have hundreds of guests thinkers and grad students streaming through doing paid speeches and Q&As. If half of them are Alex Jones fraudsters, ok, let students protest and leaflet outside all they want, which would be even more exchanging of ideas and facts.

It's mind-boggling that it has to be limited.

I meant that in terms of physical space availability, of which there is a finite amount. Theres only so many conference rooms that can house a visiting guest speaker.

I don't think that's a real issue. It's not like all the controversial speakers are trying to speak at the same university at the same time. Usually these spots are planned weeks or months in advance, plenty of time to book a room.

In fact most of the spots that have been called off were canceled well after they were scheduled and confirmed. If a university for whatever reason does not want to host the speaker at all, then just come right out and say so. Saying "Oh so sorry, we're all booked for the next 6 months!" is just a transparent excuse.

Its not specific to those examples though. Think of it like a thought experiment: a university literally can't host everyone so there's some criteria by which a guest needs to be judged.

In America, a lot of the spots were cancelled, IIRC, because protests necessitated increased security that couldn't be arranged or paid for. I'm not sure thats on the university.

Protests are an excuse. Protests are allowed and even encouraged by the university.

If the university actually wanted to stop protests, it would be trivial. Simply remove all support for protesters. (make this known in advance) This means: access cards stop working, transcripts are made unavailable, employees are fired, degrees are revoked, scholarships are terminated... some of this can be retroactive too.

When this has been done even in relatively limited form, protesters quickly stopped causing trouble. When the university gives tacit approval to the protesters, things quickly spiral out of control.

Protesting is a pretty fundamental right and societal value in America though. Cracking down on protests is, in my view, just as authoritarian as what the universities are accused of.

Rioting is not a fundamental right. An actual peaceful protest would not require prohibitively costly security arrangements.

Whether something is a riot is often subjective and a lot of security arrangements are made for peaceful protests. After all a peaceful protest may turn into a riot. Or it may remain peaceful.

UK doesn't have free speech to begin with.

"Free speech" is a loaded term. In the US, you can't just say whatever you want without consequence, which is what lots of people seem to think "free speech" means.

Neither slander nor obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. Same goes for so-called "fighting words." Incitement of lawlessness is not protected. Incitement of suicide will likely be tested soon, but a lower court has ruled it is not protected.

And that's just a fraction of the types of speech not protected by the US Constitution.

"That's a load of old bollocks."

In the UK I'm free to say this in public, following a magistrate court's decision in a public obscenity case against the Sex Pistols, caused by their album, "Never mind the bollocks (...)" that the word, bollocks, means "nonsense", not "testicles"; and is, therefore, not an obscenity.

And that is how free speech is protected, in the UK, and other modern democracies.

_____________

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Mind_the_Bollocks,_Here%...

All the Americans saying this are free to set up an event to support Hizb-ut-Tahir and see how long they last.

An odd headline, given that free speech is only a 'negative' right in the UK

No it isn't. Read the convention rights.

It tickled me that Westminster University has a policy of not allowing people to speak who are intolerant of free speech. Presumably no representative of the university can ever speak. That must be hard for them.

https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-precept-1...

Betteridge's law of headlines.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com