John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

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?

No amount of legislation can make it possible for someone to speak if the body of people concerned choose to prevent them. 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.
No platforming has a long history much of it linked to demonstrations and acts of violence. It is not new. It is not dangerous and its effect on free speech has been greatly exaggerated newsocialist.org.uk/45-years-history-and-continuing-importance-no-platform/

Universities to comply with free speech duties or face sanctions November 2021

It is a basic human right to be able to express ourselves freely and take part in rigorous debate. Our legal system allows us to articulate views which others may disagree with as long as they don’t meet the threshold of hate speech or inciting violence. This must be defended, nowhere more so than within our world-renowned universities.

Holding universities to account on the importance of freedom of speech in higher education is a milestone moment in fulfilling our manifesto commitment, protecting the rights of students and academics, and countering the chilling effect of censorship on campus once and for all.

How will students ever learn critical appraisal skills and debating techniques without apparently contentious topics to discuss/review?

Good luck with that one Aveline, I've raised the same question several times now and had no response.

I really don't know where to go with this with you now tbh; as volver and pretty much everyone else has pointed out to you and vs, the whole point of AG Dixon's lecture was to illustrate how wrong, ridiculous and pathetic Hitler and his "artwork" really were. An immediate moral outrage blinded you to what was actually said and the default knee-jerk reaction is to say BAN HIM! DON'T ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK AGAIN! AG Dixon has been no platformed, cancelled and vilified because a number of people, who are either intellectually, or wilfully, incapable of critical thinking and disseminating the difference to what they think they heard, against what was actually said, has deprived other students from hearing what he had to say. Their right to hear a speaker and their right to make a decision or opinions for themselves, has been denied them.

You claim that none of this impacts freedom of speech? Parliament disagrees with you as do I

November 2021
Freedom of expression is a key part of the higher education experience. 4 Sharing ideas freely is crucial for learning, and allows students to think critically, challenge and engage with different perspectives. Therefore, HEPs should encourage discussion and exchange of views on difficult and controversial issues.

The current trend for calling schoolchildren 'students' (I heard nursery children referred to as students the other day!) infantilises university students, IMO, and detracts from the fact that they are young adults, not children who need to be protected from difficult thinking.

How will students ever learn critical appraisal skills and debating techniques without apparently contentious topics to discuss/review? Vital part of student learning.

I'm still wondering who has the right to decide what others should be able to hear, and why they have that right. I'm also interested to learn how views that some may find offensive will ever be challenged if their holders are not allowed to express them.

The idea that some students should have the right to no-platform someone 'in their own university' and thus deny other students in the same university the opportunity to listen to them, and to challenge any views with which they disagree strikes me as anti-democratic in the extreme.

But you are insisting that stopping someone speaking in one place is restricting freedom of speech aren't you?
I'm stunned that you can't see the difference between an organisation or body choosing not to permit someone to speak and an outside organisation trying to influence their decision.
The first happens all the time.

The fact that you disagree with no platforming someone because you think their views are acceptable should have absolutely nothing to do with it. Regardless of how I feel about AGD (and I think he was being a prat) if people were offended and asked that he not be permitted to speak there again, that is a freedom they should have. It isn't restricting freedom of speech, he can go elsewhere and say what he wishes. It is in fact how public speaking has always worked and always will. Because no Jewish organisation would ask a holocaust denier to speak, no Muslim organisation would ask an islamaphobe to speak, no socialist organisation would ask a fascist to speak, because should they do so the likelihood is that here would be protests and demonstrations. The concept that everyone has the right to speak anywhere regardless of the sensibilities of their audience is simply a falsehood. The other falsehood is that these restrictions in any way limit free speech.

Would you for example insist that someone who supported euthanasia for over 80s should be permitted to speak to the staff and occupants of a care home?

Insist? No. I don't insist my views on any demographic; hence my entering this debate about freedom of speech. Would I permit them to speak? Absolutely I would. There may be members of that audience who want to explore the subject of euthanasia and would be interested to know more about it. There may be others would find that topic offensive and that's their right to be so and they can stay away. But so long as they're not being carried, bound and gagged, into the auditorium and forced to listen, I can't see your argument for disallowing it. And I'm still stunned that you cannot see any connection to no platforming Martin Luther King and his views on racial equality and no platforming Greer & JK Rowling for their own views on women's rights. Both/all have/had a right to an opinion and both/all have a right to express them. But someone, somewhere will be offended. Should everyone be silenced, on every subject, until we have a 100% consensus that everyone thinks the same and there are no snowflakes being offended?

Glorianny Don't you think that some of the people in the care home might want to hear what the euthanasia supporter had to say. I bet some would.

Chewbacca

^I don't think the FBI were students were they^ Good grief! You're not serious surely? Really??? You can't make the connection? Hell's bells!

I think the lack of connection is just a different viewpointChewbacca and I can argue my view without resorting to accusations. One is the imposition of values by an outside body on an organisation, something which I would vigorously object to, but which I am certain goes on.
The other is the right of any group of people to decide who can speak in their space and what rules there should be about what they say I cannot see that this is anything but normal and the way society works. Would you for example insist that someone who supported euthanasia for over 80s should be permitted to speak to the staff and occupants of a care home?

No plAtforming speakers like Germaine Greer, jk Rowling for example, because you disagree with their legally held views is attempting to shut down debate
I find Priti Patel’s belief systems and the way she describes asylum seekers absolutely offensive. Much as I’d like to see her voted out of office, she has every right to express views I find offensive. Democratically elected, she and her front bench colleagues get to wreak havoc with my country
It’s freedom and democracy

If students don't want someone speaking why should they have to listen in their own university?
Which students own the university?

Which ones get to decide what other students should be able to hear or discuss?

On what grounds are these students chosen?

What is the role of staff in all of this?

Why should students with a different perspective from those who advocate bans above free speech have to listen to the view of the 'banners' in their own university?

IMO, if someone is acting within the law, it is not for anyone to take it upon themselves to decide on behalf of others what is 'offensive' and what is not.

If someone turns up to a university venue and starts inciting racial hatred or something of that sort, then of course they should be prosecuted and it would be perfectly reasonable to blacklist them in future, but otherwise, people can decide their red lines for themselves. They can either refuse to attend, decide to leave when those lines are crossed, or (and in a university this seems the most desirable option) question the speaker and expose the weakness in their arguments.

Boycotts and flounces never show the same integrity as standing one's ground and arguing; but for those who don't have the courage of their convictions both are preferable to having the views of The Deciders imposed onto everyone else.

I don't think the FBI were students were they Good grief! You're not serious surely? Really??? You can't make the connection? Hell's bells!

Chewbacca

^No one has said he broke the law Doodledog just that people had a right to be offended and to ask that he not be permitted to speak again.^

In 1963, the FBI, led by EJ Hoover, decided that Martin Luther King was a threat to national security and he had to be silenced. They tapped the phone lines in his office and home, intercepted his mail, tried to discredit him about his sex life and put him under intense surveillance.

In 1964, he was invited by Springfield College President Glenn Olds to receive an honorary degree and deliver the commencement address on June 14. But just days after King accepted the invitation, the FBI tried to get the college to rescind it. The Bureau asked Massachusetts Senator Leverett Saltonstall, a corporator of Springfield College, to lean on Olds to “uninvite” King, based on damning details from the wiretap.

So, depending on your point of view, were they protecting the students at Springfield College from being offended or were they destroying their civil rights to listen to someone speak?

I don't think the FBI were students were they? So not quite the same but good try.

As for the TV analogy if I invite you into my home and I or any other member of my family chooses to turn off my TV you would not have the right to protest that I was restricting your freedoms. What you do in your home is up to you but you cannot insist that I allow you to do something I find offensive. If students don't want someone speaking why should they have to listen in their own university? Anyone interested can go elsewhere to hear those people. Freedom of speech is not the freedom to speak anywhere you choose at any time. The audience has always had the ability and the right to refuse to listen.

No one has said he broke the law Doodledog just that people had a right to be offended and to ask that he not be permitted to speak again.

In 1963, the FBI, led by EJ Hoover, decided that Martin Luther King was a threat to national security and he had to be silenced. They tapped the phone lines in his office and home, intercepted his mail, tried to discredit him about his sex life and put him under intense surveillance.

In 1964, he was invited by Springfield College President Glenn Olds to receive an honorary degree and deliver the commencement address on June 14. But just days after King accepted the invitation, the FBI tried to get the college to rescind it. The Bureau asked Massachusetts Senator Leverett Saltonstall, a corporator of Springfield College, to lean on Olds to “uninvite” King, based on damning details from the wiretap.

So, depending on your point of view, were they protecting the students at Springfield College from being offended or were they destroying their civil rights to listen to someone speak?

I don't have time at the moment to weigh in to this discussion - other than to express my wholehearted support and deep admiration of volver, Doodledog, Chewbacca and the others for their robust and articulate defence of free speech and (in that context) the right to offend others. Nil carborundum!

Rosie51

I'm such a slow typist you'd already said it Doodledog

No worries - I do that all the time .

I'm such a slow typist you'd already said it Doodledog

Glorianny

No one has said he broke the law Doodledog just that people had a right to be offended and to ask that he not be permitted to speak again. If the majority took that view it's simply democracy in action. I don't have to listen or watch things that I find offensive I can turn them off. The university students effectively used their off switch.

The university students effectively used their off switch. actually some university students tried to use the off switch for everyone. A bit like me using the off switch to stop you watching a TV program I find offensive. Those that found him offensive only needed to stay away from any further events he was to speak at, that's their off switch.

Glorianny

No one has said he broke the law Doodledog just that people had a right to be offended and to ask that he not be permitted to speak again. If the majority took that view it's simply democracy in action. I don't have to listen or watch things that I find offensive I can turn them off. The university students effectively used their off switch.

Indeed, but by trying to get him banned, they were imposing their POV (which it turns out was entirely erroneous) onto others - the equivalent of me turning off your TV because I am offended by something that you find acceptable.

Glorianny

He said afterwards My point was that evil ideas in the sphere of art can have untold and even atrocious consequences in the rest of life.
Really! Nothing to do with the economy, racism or any other theories?
He also attributed Hitler's views to his lack of success as a watercolour painter, and his treatment of Jews as a consequence of their support for modern art.
Which effectively is anti-semitic. Not all Jews have the same opinions about things and attributing such views to them is antisemitic. If he had said all Jews were bankers he would have been roundly condemned, but because he was speaking about art it's OK? No it isn't.
If you choose you can say he was trying to make a point, but he made it badly and he offended people. There can't be any doubt about that. It was probably unintentional but does that mean he should have the right to do it?

For goodness sake, surely this is just a way of winding everybody up Glorianny? You don't really believe that do you?

Are you seriously saying that AGD is anti Semitic because he was saying the anti Semitic things that Hitler said to show how bad Hitler was?

David Baddiel has a book out called "Jews Don't Count." Is he being anti-Semitic? Should we no-platform him?

Galaxy

And if you hand that power out, it will be minorities that suffer the most. The campaign for gay rights offended swathes of the population, as did the campaign for womens rights.

So they did and women were no platformed in many ways. It didn't stop them. If something is important enough no-platforming is of little use.

No one has said he broke the law Doodledog just that people had a right to be offended and to ask that he not be permitted to speak again. If the majority took that view it's simply democracy in action. I don't have to listen or watch things that I find offensive I can turn them off. The university students effectively used their off switch.

And if you hand that power out, it will be minorities that suffer the most. The campaign for gay rights offended swathes of the population, as did the campaign for womens rights.