4 ms·

Most of the "safe spaces" and "no platforming" debate is actually the same thing - leaving a place that you don't like. It's just that when a public figure lik

Most of the "safe spaces" and "no platforming" debate is actually the same thing - leaving a place that you don't like. It's just that when a public figure like Peter Tachell is on the receiving end of it they can use their media presence to complain, unlike the people Fry didn't want to engage with on Twitter. In the Tachell incident all that happened was a student decided not to attend an event with Tachell. He was not being censored or "no platformed" in any way. The result was he threw a tantrum and wrote articles attacking the student in national newspapers (where the student was given no opportunity to reply). What people like Bindell and Greer and Tachell and Fry are demanding isn't the ability to say things without censorship. What they are demanding that that they can go onto a campus and force student to listen to their talks.

matthewmacleod 11y ago
What people like Bindell and Greer and Tachell and Fry are demanding isn't the ability to say things without censorship. What they are demanding that that they can go onto a campus and force student to listen to their talks. That's just completely false. Lindell/Greer/Tatchell/Fry are pointing out, in my opinion entirely accurately, that there is a trend towards stifling and opting out of discussion under the guise of safety, in place of engaging with debate. Who do you think invites speakers to campus in any case? Obviously some people are interested in what these people say. That's absolutely not 'forcing' students to listen to talks, and I am speechless that you could honestly think that was the case.
DanBC 11y ago
> In the Tachell incident all that happened was a student decided not to attend an event with Tachell. He was not being censored or "no platformed" in any way. You're wrong. All of this has already been published, and it was a single click away from the submitted article. The LGBT rep of the Students Union was clearly trying to no-platform Tatchell. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchell-snubbed-students-free-speech-veteran-gay-rights-activist http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchel... > In the emails, sent to the organisers of a talk at Canterbury Christ Church University on Monday on the topic of “re-radicalising queers”, Cowling refuses an invitation to speak unless Tatchell, who has also been invited, does not attend. That individual is trying hard to get Tatchell no-platformed. Luckily the SU rejected it.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

What people like Bindell and Greer and Tachell and Fry are demanding isn't the ability to say things without censorship. What they are demanding that that they can go onto a campus and force student to listen to their talks. That's just completely false. Lindell/Greer/Tatchell/Fry are pointing out, in my opinion entirely accurately, that there is a trend towards stifling and opting out of discussion under the guise of safety, in place of engaging with debate. Who do you think invites speakers to campus in any case? Obviously some people are interested in what these people say. That's absolutely not 'forcing' students to listen to talks, and I am speechless that you could honestly think that was the case.

DanBC 11y ago

> In the Tachell incident all that happened was a student decided not to attend an event with Tachell. He was not being censored or "no platformed" in any way. You're wrong. All of this has already been published, and it was a single click away from the submitted article. The LGBT rep of the Students Union was clearly trying to no-platform Tatchell. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchell-snubbed-students-free-speech-veteran-gay-rights-activist http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchel... > In the emails, sent to the organisers of a talk at Canterbury Christ Church University on Monday on the topic of “re-radicalising queers”, Cowling refuses an invitation to speak unless Tatchell, who has also been invited, does not attend. That individual is trying hard to get Tatchell no-platformed. Luckily the SU rejected it.