John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Smileless2012

Only governments which are dictatorial and authoritarian try to impose their ideas on others but that isn't happening in this context.

The head of Cambridge Student Union said he would tell other universities not to allow Andrew Dixon to speak. He and the students who objected to Dixon's talk are the ones trying to impose their personal objections onto others. Surely, they are the ones being dictatorial.

But it doesn't really matter what his personal opinions are. He only holds the position he does because he was elected. If he does things which other students dislike they don't have to vote for him. It is in any case an annual appointment so any decisions taken would be short lived. He also said that he received more complaints about AGD than any other speaker. Was he supposed to ignore those complaints? Since when has complaining been dictatorial? How on earth could it possibly be?

It's an abuse of power
Um, what am I missing?

Surely this is ensuring freedom of speech whereas the Student Union are the ones abusing their power, ensuring those with whom they disagree are given no chance to present their views and stifling debate.

The SU is acting in an undemocratic and dictatorial way.
It's frightening that these people could be the leaders of the future.

It's an abuse of power.
Oh the irony!

Only governments which are dictatorial and authoritarian try to impose their ideas on others but that isn't happening in this context.

The head of Cambridge Student Union said he would tell other universities not to allow Andrew Dixon to speak. He and the students who objected to Dixon's talk are the ones trying to impose their personal objections onto others. Surely, they are the ones being dictatorial.

Sorry last paragraph a bit misleading.
I meant I'm surprised anyone should think passing restrictions about students unions because MPs have been refused permission to speak at a union is OK. It's an abuse of power.

I think anyone regarding this as something they would support, and think they believe in free speech should think very carefully about it. Why should students be subjected to more legal restrictions than other bodies? Only governments which are dictatorial and authoritarian try to impose their ideas on others.Any interference other than laws which apply to the whole population should apply and if the law is broken those responsible should be prosecuted.
But of course it isn't really about that.
It's mainly because student unions have over the years refused to invite Conservative MPs to speak. I'm surprised anyone would think that's OK.

The university may have a duty to give them a broad based education, the students union has no such obligation.
Further information to show that you're wrong:

The new legislation will also enable students, academics and visiting speakers to seek compensation from higher education institutions and student unions they believe have not upheld legal duties to facilitate free speech.

Speakers who believe they have been "deplatformed", if, for example, they are removed from events schedules following protest by students, could therefore seek compensation under the new law.

The university may have a duty to give them a broad based education, the students union has no such obligation. Wrong.

New legal duties to protect freedom of speech at universities and colleges in England have been announced by the Education Secretary. These measures will safeguard academic debate and prevent people having their opinions and views silenced.

Universities will be legally required not only to take steps to secure lawful freedom of speech and academic freedom, but also to promote them on campus, and they could face sanctions if they fail to do so.

The Office for Students will have the power to impose sanctions, including financial penalties for breaches of the conditions. Intolerance is unacceptable in any circumstance – but it is particularly important that universities and students’ unions don’t silence people or stifle debate.

Universities are renowned for being places of innovation and invention and that requires challenging received wisdom in the knowledge that you are safe to do so.

At times, freedom of speech may mean having difficult discussions, or putting forward thoughts and discussing ideas that are controversial, challenge the mainstream, and may even be offensive to some. That is the nature of education, and these debates are vital in helping form balanced world views and in understanding other people’s points of view. freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to break the law.

The new duties only relate to lawful freedom of speech. Protecting lawful free speech is very different to allowing harassment and unlawful discrimination or inciting others to violence or terrorism, all of which will not be tolerated on our campuses.

We all have the right to articulate views which others may find objectionable as long as they don’t meet the threshold of hate speech and inciting violence.

Students are at university to learn; they are not mature, experienced adults equipped to make decisions on behalf of others. They have the right to disagree, to vote with their feet, (nothing more demoralising than attempting to lecture or debate with a virtually empty hall) , to express their view openly and convincingly.
But to forbid certain people to speak because some unrepresentative groups disapprove, to threaten violence if that person is invited on campus, to protest so vociferously that speakers are drowned out, that is not freedom of speech.

No amount of legislation can make it possible for someone to speak if the body of people concerned choose to prevent them
So capitulate to the mob?
No platforming is I imagine as much a result of health and safety regulations as anything else. If someone is booked to speak but the student body demonstrates against them, they will be effectively no platformed, but there is a risk of injury or damage. It's just a safer way to regulate things
So mob violence is an acceptable way to regulate freedom of speech?

Doodledog

I fully understand the role of the student union. My understanding, however, is that it was not a democratically agreed decision to ban AG-D, but a decision made by the head of the union, which he then rescinded (possibly after someone 'had a word' about his knee-jerk reaction).

The government is not interfering in the right of student unions to choose who is invited to speak. They are, however, acting to ensure that a range of views can be heard, so long as they are within the law.

It is actually a action which never happened so the whole thread is misapprehension.
However I still maintain that government have no role to play in the speakers at a private organisation, that it is up to the members, that all organisations do this and only invite speakers they wish to hear. Why students should be chosen as the object of this advice I have no idea. The university may have a duty to give them a broad based education, the students union has no such obligation.

They are, however, acting to ensure that a range of views can be heard, so long as they are within the law. As opposed to the FBI who used their power and influence to prevent students of a college hearing what MLK had to say. Who knows.... maybe if those 1964 students had heard him speak, history would have taken a different turn. But we'll never know. Because he was No Platformed by The Deciders.

Thank you Doodledog.

I fully understand the role of the student union. My understanding, however, is that it was not a democratically agreed decision to ban AG-D, but a decision made by the head of the union, which he then rescinded (possibly after someone 'had a word' about his knee-jerk reaction).

The government is not interfering in the right of student unions to choose who is invited to speak. They are, however, acting to ensure that a range of views can be heard, so long as they are within the law.

Doodledog

But students do not think as one amorphous mass. Which students do you think should get to decide what the rest of them should be able to hear? That question has been asked several times, but never answered.

Also, the FBI example was of someone being silenced, which is something to which Chewbacca was objecting. The government saying that universities should allow free speech is not in opposition to this - it would support the right of MLK to speak.

That's what is wrong here a misunderstanding of what a Students Union is. It is a body of people elected by the students to represent their views and interests and to protect and care for them. If that elected body does something the majority of students disapprove of, they can be removed at the next election. So it isn't an "amorphous mass"it's a democratically elected body.
The point about the FBI and government not interfering is that both bodies change as do the ideas and concepts behind them. Accepting any interference is denying the right of those students to make their own democratic decisions. Of course they are always subject to the law, but if what they are doing is perfectly legal no government or agency should be permitted to interfere. The fact that you agree or disagree with the decision is irrelevant. That's simply the real basis of free speech. I may not agree with you but I recognise your right to behave as you do as long as you cause no harm.
Saying well this body is right to interfere because I agree with them but this one isn't because I don't, is dangerous and the antithesis of free speech.

perhaps I should have used implied instead of suggested above

No one is suggesting that Muslim groups should invite an islamaphobe to speak - as Glorianny suggested. AGD was invited to speak at the Cambridge Union. The audience chose to be there. If they were so opposed to some of the content of his discussion they could have removed themselves or else argued cogently against him. It would see that they chose to do neither, but to be outraged,

Glorianny has not mentioned the freedom of the students who wanted to hear what AGD has to say.

If I don't want to watch a film that I am not enjoying I have the freedom to remove myself. I don't have the freedom to get up in the cinema and shout at the audience to prevent them from watching.

I'm seeing shades of Mary Whitehouse here.

Sorry - late again .

But students do not think as one amorphous mass. Which students do you think should get to decide what the rest of them should be able to hear? That question has been asked several times, but never answered.

Also, the FBI example was of someone being silenced, which is something to which Chewbacca was objecting. The government saying that universities should allow free speech is not in opposition to this - it would support the right of MLK to speak.

but Chewbacca is happy to quote parliament saying what Universities should do.

<<Sigh>> Can you not see, or understand, that parliament has recognised that universities, and their student unions, have increasingly banned/frozen out/no platformed so many speakers, that it's been recognised that students are slowly but surely being denied the opportunity to hear opinions/views/outlooks that may differ from their own and that this is detrimental to their ability to critique or discuss a subject? The very fact that government legislation is required to ensure that all students not just The Deciders are offered challenges to their own perspectives, offered the opportunity to hear someone else's experiences and agree/disagee/be outraged and rail against it if they wish, is indicative that universities are beginning to offer only an echo chamber of previously sanctioned speakers. Silencing other opinions and experiences simply because they might be offended isn't a democratic society - in or out of the university campus. I'm offended by some of your opinions by I'd fight to the death for your right to express them. You want them silenced. No platform. No voice. They don't fit with what you consider "suitable discussion material". A Decider.

Surely there’s a difference between an organisation like the fbi attempting to stop a civil rights leader speaking and a democratically elected government supporting effective anti hate speech legislation

Aveline

I do think there are dim posters on this thread but you are not one of them Doodledog!

Really?? What a profound statement Aveline and great contribution to the discussion. Would you like to name names? Or is that a little too much for you?

Doodledog

*I do question someone who is happy for governments to legislate in one area of speech but regards another government department's interference as unacceptable. Surely if one accepts interference by external bodies one has to accept it, not judge if it fits one's personal agenda?*

Sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't understand this. Can you explain, please?

Chewbacca used the FBI's trying to prevent Martin Luther King speaking at a university as an example of unacceptable interference but is happy to quote parliament saying what Universities should do.
Now I don't think either of those bodies should be interfering in the right of students to decide who speaks in the University Union (which is what the Cambridge Union is). It seems odd to me to oppose one interference but accept the other, simply because you agree with the policy behind the interference. I would no more want to see a government agency interfering than I would a government.
And please note this is not the University but the University Union which is and always has been an organisation run by, and for, students. It exists to carry out the wishes of its members. If you are saying you think a student union should have to allow certain speakers you are effectively denying those students the right to democratically decide who they invite. Which is about as different from freedom of speech as you can get.

Thank you Aveline .

I understand the post in its own right, but not in the context of the thread. I don't see anyone being partial in their stance.

I do think there are dim posters on this thread but you are not one of them Doodledog!

I do question someone who is happy for governments to legislate in one area of speech but regards another government department's interference as unacceptable. Surely if one accepts interference by external bodies one has to accept it, not judge if it fits one's personal agenda?

Sorry if I'm being dim, but I don't understand this. Can you explain, please?