John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

Galaxy

Who judges that then glorianny? You cant explore difficult ideas without offending. It's not possible.

Of course you can. It is in any case ridiculous to use Hitler in a discussion about good and bad taste. Does anyone seriously imagine it was taste that led to the deaths of so many people or the closing down of what was the most open and permissive society in Europe? AGD isn't a comedian, he isn't a writer of comedy scripts. He is an art historian and should stick to what he knows. I'm not sure he should be no-platformed, but I am certain if I had been sitting in that debate and my family had been massacred by the Nazis I would regard his performance as trivialising their deaths and I would have complained loudly. We should remember that many of those who escaped from Germany are still tracing their family and finding out their fate and this necessarily impacts on the younger generation. It also resonates with the rise of anti-semitism in the UK which AGD seems to be regrettably unaware of. Of course he needed to apologise but he is a clever person and should have more sensitivity.

He was sticking to what he knows, which is art.

He wasn't making jokes or trying to be funny.

If you think his "performance" was trivialising deaths, you have completely misunderstood what he said, the meaning of his argument, and what's being said on this thread. Is nobody to mention Hitler any more? You are accusing him of things like contributing to the rise of anti-Semitism which is just an unacceptable thing to do.

It's like living in 1984 some days.

Cambridge University is currently discussing free speech, the lack of it and it's consequences. This article addresses how the implied chilling of speech that might offend others (lack of “respect”) impacts tolerance, understanding others viewpoints and, most importantly, freedom of speech. While debate and discussion may be robust and challenging, all speakers have a right to be heard when exercising their right to free speech within the law.

The whole article is here. I do hope that vs does return to this discussion and reads the full article because it explains, in simple terms, how cancel culture negatively affects open discussion of our history, our present and our future.

whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/17/cambridge-university-tries-once-again-to-enforce-respect-in-its-free-speech-regulations/

It was Hitler's 'taste' that resulted in some works of art being destroyed Glorianny or ironically being saved by the evil Goering to form his own private art collection.

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?

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 antisemitic. Is it?

IMO it's a explanation, just one of several, of his antisemitism but is not in itself antisemetic.

People will be offended about all sorts of things. Nobody would be able to say anything if we shouldn't have the right to say anything that might offend someone somewhere.

Laws exist to prevent people saying things that might cause harm, by inciting hatred or violence. They do not exist to protect people from being offended. If they did there would be a TV and radio blackout, cinemas and theatres would close and there would be no social media.

It was probably unintentional but does that mean he should have the right to do it? Yes, he should have the right. You don't have to agree with him. You have the right to be offended if you wish. But he has the same rights as you have: the right to hold a different opinion and express it.

From the final paragraph in the abovementioned Freedom of Speech article:

They need to learn that enforcing “respect” in discourse cannot be harmonized with Cambridge’s free speech policy, for if you give someone offense with your words, they can and will claim that you’re not respecting them.

But saying that “you don’t respect me” is no more of an argument than “I’m offended”, and doesn’t belong in any regulations about free speech.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Rosie51

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

No worries - I do that all the time .

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!

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?

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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?

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.