John Cleese and Andrew Graham Dixon

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

Chewbacca perhaps you would like to explain why it is Ok for a government to interfere in decisions made by a democratic student organisation? If a socialist organisation refused to allow a fascist to speak would that be acceptable or should it be regulated as well?

Callistemon21

^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.

No it's an abuse of power because a government is imposing its views on a democratic organisation. The fact that you agree with those views should be irrelevant.

Chewbacca look at the history of No platforming it has mainly been used against the right wing and yes some Tory MPs.

No it's an abuse of power because a government is imposing its views on a democratic organisation. The fact that you agree with those views should be irrelevant.

So if Labour are in power only right wing speakers are allowed?

What ulterior universe is this?

It is actually a action which never happened so the whole thread is misapprehension.

No, I think you're wrong there. Most posters have understood what happened and responded to that. There is no misapprehension on our part, unless I have missed something.

The head of the Cambridge Union, Keir Bradwell, did not like the content of the speech of AG-D. He emailed the rest of the union members to tell them that he had decided to no-platform AG-D, and said that We will create a blacklist of speakers never to be invited back, and we will share it with other unions too. Andrew will be on that list, ( Source the BBC ). That action happened. The fact that Bradwell revoked his statement does not alter the fact that the action happened.

This thread is about whether students 'are delicate little flowers who don't like their equilibrium unsettled'. My view, and that of others, is that they should be exposed to a variety of viewpoints (within the law) and that they will never learn to develop their own opinions as long as other people (The Deciders) are able to choose which opinions to allow to be heard, and to force their choices on others by no-platforming people with who viewpoints they disagree.

He was elected to represent the students at Cambridge University Glorianny, so what on earth made him think he had the right to tell other universities to not allow Dixon to speak?

Furthermore, if he received more complaints about Dixon than any other speaker, why was Dixon able to speak at a later date at Cambridge, which proceeded to go well?

they will never learn to develop their own opinions as long as other people (The Deciders) are able to choose which opinions to allow to be heard, and to force their choices on others by no-platforming people with who viewpoints they disagree

Now, where and who does that remind me of?
Propaganda and indoctrination of the youth, who were not given the opportunity to question and debate other issues than those decreed suitable.

Yes, Callistemon, and lists of undesirables, whose ideas don't fit the dominant ideology.

Callistemon21

^they will never learn to develop their own opinions as long as other people (The Deciders) are able to choose which opinions to allow to be heard, and to force their choices on others by no-platforming people with who viewpoints they disagree^

Now, where and who does that remind me of?
Propaganda and indoctrination of the youth, who were not given the opportunity to question and debate other issues than those decreed suitable.

Hmmmm........no give me a clue. First thought was the Hitler youth, but I discarded that because we all know how far removed today's youth are.... dictatorships are definitely not for them....

So what you are basically saying is young people can't decide for themselves who speaks to them they have to have anyone who chooses to ask. Firstly it's plainly ridiculous because unions will only choose people their students want to hear. Should they choose someone unpopular or with views the students don't want to hear they will simply not turn up, or they will use the old way of no-platforming and demonstrate and vociferously prevent the speaker from either speaking or gaining access to the union.
It's interesting that none of you who choose to believe student unions should be regulated by law will answer my question should a socialist society have to listen to a fascist?

Zoejory That's an interesting question. It could be that in future students unions could become more right wing and the government more left. Would I then think that Labour speakers must be permitted well no I wouldn't. It would still be the right of the elected student body to choose the speakers.
But historically no-platforming has been used to deny Conservative MPs permission to speak at SUs
It's very silly anyway
You see you can claim that legislation is in the interests of free speech (which it isn't) but you can legislate all you want. You can't legislate to make anyone listen to anything they choose not to.

You can't legislate to make anyone listen to anything they choose not to.

Who is saying you can?
That remark is risible.

But if they are not given the choice, the opportunity, because someone else decides it is unsuitable, how will they ever learn to judge for themselves, debate in a reasonable fashion?

If those who want to listen to a range of lawful views are prevented from doing so because of no-platforming or even intimidation then that is a very dangerous path to do down.

go down

Callistemon21

^You can't legislate to make anyone listen to anything they choose not to^.

Who is saying you can?
That remark is risible.

But if they are not given the choice, the opportunity, because someone else decides it is unsuitable, how will they ever learn to judge for themselves, debate in a reasonable fashion?

If those who want to listen to a range of lawful views are prevented from doing so because of no-platforming or even intimidation then that is a very dangerous path to do down.

Have you any evidence of intimidation or indeed of no-platforming being some sort of imposed process?
Students are at a University for 5-7 years at the most, the majority for 3. Student Union officers stand for election every year and a democratic process is involved. How on earth given those factors could anyone impose anything successfully?
You simply refuse to give students the right to decide who speaks in their space.
But the question remains how far would you take this imposition of a government's rules.
Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?

Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?

If students at Cambridge don't understand mockery, parody and irony and thought AGD was spouting fascist propaganda then society is on the way to becoming doomed!

Andrew Graham Dixon is great and it is a loss for any university if they don’t take advantage of his knowledge and expertise.

Callistemon21

^Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?^

If students at Cambridge don't understand mockery, parody and irony and thought AGD was spouting fascist propaganda then society is on the way to becoming doomed!

Not really an answer is it?
I find it fascinating that a straight answer can't be given by any of those who profess to be about free speech.

But if we are going back to AGD I don't think any of the students thought any such thing they simply thought his statements were offensive, using Hitler in a discussion about good taste was inappropriate and his references to the deaths in the holocaust was unnecessary. Given his lack of sensitivity and the fact that many had complained about it he was no-platformed. That has since been rescinded. Mockery, parody and irony are fine when they are done well. Unfortunately AGD is really bad at it.

Should a socialist society have to allow a fascist to speak?

I think it could be construed as hate speech so, no, because that is unlawful.