4 ms·

No, that's a misrepresentation of the argument that was being made. The point is that you are free to remove yourself from discussion that you don't want to pa

No, that's a misrepresentation of the argument that was being made. The point is that you are free to remove yourself from discussion that you don't want to participate in. You're free to publicly complain about an individual's views. What is more worrying is the desire to prevent those views being aired to other people as well. You have the right to not listen; you don't have the right to prevent other people from listening. That's what a 'safe space' policy can result in.

rodgerd 11y ago
So free speech doesn't include the right to put forward the argument that other people should ignore someone with abhorrent views? Free association doesn't include the right to decide, having listened to such an argument that one does not wish to associate with someone with a particular set of views? I look forward to Fry hosting David Irving on Qi. I look forward to your spirited push for the argument creationism needs to be taught in science classes.
- Kliment 11y ago
  Fry won't be hosting QI anymore, he's passed that torch on.
- barry-cotter 11y ago
  It obviously does include such right. But if the illiberal left continues to work towards censorship of all competing views they shouldn't be surprised if they get a bit of blowback. No platforming someone is not the same as not inviting them into your space. Public spaces are not safe spaces.
  - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
    Should they be made to be forced to platform someone or be forced to invite someone they don't actually welcome?
    - barry-cotter 11y ago
      That depends on the context. I'm totally ok with saying fuck the students union or the university trying to censor speakers student clubs and societies have invited though. If the illiberal left feel like using violence and intimidation to physically no platform people good. The more people see that they're just bullies on a power trip the better.
      - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
        If it depends on context then perhaps it shouldn't be so widely stated. My university when I was in school had pro life people invited who put huge pictures of gore up on the student union so that no one could get food on campus without seeing the images. They also brought a truck with more gore pictures that drove around campus. Is it censorship when a huge portion of the student body made it very clear that wasn't welcome via counter protests and the creation of a tunneled off space where people could enter the student union without seeing anything? I agree that shutting out certain polticial views is bad, but I also don't feel anyone should be forced to platform or shoved into politics when they really don't want to deal with that. I mean, then it just becomes a case of forcing people to listen to you and that's not free speech at all.
        barry-cotter 11y ago
        > Is it censorship when a huge portion of the student body made it very clear that wasn't welcome via counter protests and the creation of a tunneled off space where people could enter the student union without seeing anything? I fail to see the relevance of safe spaces and trigger warnings to what you wrote. Large portions of the student body hated the anti-abortion stuff and you protested against it and worked around it. Go you. That's how things should be done. > I agree that shutting out certain polticial views is bad, but I also don't feel anyone should be forced to platform or shoved into politics when they really don't want to deal with that. I mean, then it just becomes a case of forcing people to listen to you and that's not free speech at all. You may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you. You can't shut out politics because politics is what happens when three or more humans get together. That's what entryism is about. One would not think hobbies as marginal as atheist organisations, SF con goers and computer gaming would be worth infiltrating and taking over but they've all become vastly more political recently. No one's forcing you to attend the Marxist/Nazi/Libertarian/Socialist speaker's talk. They're objecting to the attempt to prevent them speaking at all.
  - NoGravitas 11y ago
    No-platforming someone is exactly the same as not inviting them into your space. That's what it means -- not giving them a platform to speak. They can still exercise their free speech rights on their own time and their own space. Inasmuch as there is a real point of debate here, and not just the whinging of butthurt right-wingers who are used to having a platform given to them whenever they ask, the question is whether students have a right to control who the university gives a platform to. This is an area of legitimate struggle (students say yes, administrations say no), but it's overshadowed by the bogus argument that this is actually about censorship.
    - vidarh 11y ago
      The issue here - as whinging butthurt far-left-winger - is that these people also want to monopolize control of a space that hosts diverse populations including a lot of people not sharing their views, and where these strategies are also frequently used to shut up debate over what views are acceptable to express. Their views are deeply offensive to me, and would have been back when I was a student too. I get sick to my stomach at the kind of attitude it demonstrates. If they genuinely want to provide a "safe space" then they need to shut the hell up about these policies too, as they too are likely to cause offence. Otherwise it is simply hypocritical attempts to stifle the speech of just the people they disagree with.
    - barry-cotter 11y ago
      > No-platforming someone is exactly the same as not inviting them into your space. That's what it means -- not giving them a platform to speak. They can still exercise their free speech rights on their own time and their own space. No platforming began in universities and is still mostly confined there because the tactics necessary for it would get the police called almost anywhere else. The university is not solely the illiberal left's space. When they try to no platform someone they're almost always trying to get the university administration to ban the attendance of someone another university club or society invited banned. Fuck that. Other people's safe spaces aren't their safe spaces. If they want people gone or want to make their attendance impossible or unpleasant let them use violence and incivility and suffer the consequences. > Inasmuch as there is a real point of debate here, and not just the whinging of butthurt right-wingers who are used to having a platform given to them whenever they ask, the question is whether students have a right to control who the university gives a platform to. This is an area of legitimate struggle (students say yes, administrations say no), but it's overshadowed by the bogus argument that this is actually about censorship. Some students say yes, others say no.
makomk 11y ago
What actually seems to be causing controversy is that students are telling people with national columns in the press that they're not welcome. No-one actually cares about people preventing views from being aired, because no-one hears about it. For example, if I recall correctly Bindel used libel threats to stop the press linking to or providing details of academic criticism of some shoddy, politically-driven research she was using to lobby the Government. No-one cared. Most people don't even know it happened. The students behind this find the notion that they're somehow silencing nationally-published journalists by telling them they're not welcome farcial, and I agree.
- vidarh 11y ago
  If they are not welcomed by anyone, a very telling demonstration would be to let them speak to empty rooms. If these students believed the rooms would be empty, I strongly suspect they wouldn't have a problem with letting them come and be humiliated while their opponents made fun of them outside. Presumably most of the opposition to these speakers is because they know perfectly well that they will have an audience, who want to hear what they have to say.

rodgerd 11y ago

So free speech doesn't include the right to put forward the argument that other people should ignore someone with abhorrent views? Free association doesn't include the right to decide, having listened to such an argument that one does not wish to associate with someone with a particular set of views? I look forward to Fry hosting David Irving on Qi. I look forward to your spirited push for the argument creationism needs to be taught in science classes.

Kliment 11y ago
Fry won't be hosting QI anymore, he's passed that torch on.
barry-cotter 11y ago
It obviously does include such right. But if the illiberal left continues to work towards censorship of all competing views they shouldn't be surprised if they get a bit of blowback. No platforming someone is not the same as not inviting them into your space. Public spaces are not safe spaces.
- SolaceQuantum 11y ago
  Should they be made to be forced to platform someone or be forced to invite someone they don't actually welcome?
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    That depends on the context. I'm totally ok with saying fuck the students union or the university trying to censor speakers student clubs and societies have invited though. If the illiberal left feel like using violence and intimidation to physically no platform people good. The more people see that they're just bullies on a power trip the better.
    - SolaceQuantum 11y ago
      If it depends on context then perhaps it shouldn't be so widely stated. My university when I was in school had pro life people invited who put huge pictures of gore up on the student union so that no one could get food on campus without seeing the images. They also brought a truck with more gore pictures that drove around campus. Is it censorship when a huge portion of the student body made it very clear that wasn't welcome via counter protests and the creation of a tunneled off space where people could enter the student union without seeing anything? I agree that shutting out certain polticial views is bad, but I also don't feel anyone should be forced to platform or shoved into politics when they really don't want to deal with that. I mean, then it just becomes a case of forcing people to listen to you and that's not free speech at all.
      - barry-cotter 11y ago
        > Is it censorship when a huge portion of the student body made it very clear that wasn't welcome via counter protests and the creation of a tunneled off space where people could enter the student union without seeing anything? I fail to see the relevance of safe spaces and trigger warnings to what you wrote. Large portions of the student body hated the anti-abortion stuff and you protested against it and worked around it. Go you. That's how things should be done. > I agree that shutting out certain polticial views is bad, but I also don't feel anyone should be forced to platform or shoved into politics when they really don't want to deal with that. I mean, then it just becomes a case of forcing people to listen to you and that's not free speech at all. You may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you. You can't shut out politics because politics is what happens when three or more humans get together. That's what entryism is about. One would not think hobbies as marginal as atheist organisations, SF con goers and computer gaming would be worth infiltrating and taking over but they've all become vastly more political recently. No one's forcing you to attend the Marxist/Nazi/Libertarian/Socialist speaker's talk. They're objecting to the attempt to prevent them speaking at all.
- NoGravitas 11y ago
  No-platforming someone is exactly the same as not inviting them into your space. That's what it means -- not giving them a platform to speak. They can still exercise their free speech rights on their own time and their own space. Inasmuch as there is a real point of debate here, and not just the whinging of butthurt right-wingers who are used to having a platform given to them whenever they ask, the question is whether students have a right to control who the university gives a platform to. This is an area of legitimate struggle (students say yes, administrations say no), but it's overshadowed by the bogus argument that this is actually about censorship.
  - vidarh 11y ago
    The issue here - as whinging butthurt far-left-winger - is that these people also want to monopolize control of a space that hosts diverse populations including a lot of people not sharing their views, and where these strategies are also frequently used to shut up debate over what views are acceptable to express. Their views are deeply offensive to me, and would have been back when I was a student too. I get sick to my stomach at the kind of attitude it demonstrates. If they genuinely want to provide a "safe space" then they need to shut the hell up about these policies too, as they too are likely to cause offence. Otherwise it is simply hypocritical attempts to stifle the speech of just the people they disagree with.
  - barry-cotter 11y ago
    > No-platforming someone is exactly the same as not inviting them into your space. That's what it means -- not giving them a platform to speak. They can still exercise their free speech rights on their own time and their own space. No platforming began in universities and is still mostly confined there because the tactics necessary for it would get the police called almost anywhere else. The university is not solely the illiberal left's space. When they try to no platform someone they're almost always trying to get the university administration to ban the attendance of someone another university club or society invited banned. Fuck that. Other people's safe spaces aren't their safe spaces. If they want people gone or want to make their attendance impossible or unpleasant let them use violence and incivility and suffer the consequences. > Inasmuch as there is a real point of debate here, and not just the whinging of butthurt right-wingers who are used to having a platform given to them whenever they ask, the question is whether students have a right to control who the university gives a platform to. This is an area of legitimate struggle (students say yes, administrations say no), but it's overshadowed by the bogus argument that this is actually about censorship. Some students say yes, others say no.

makomk 11y ago

What actually seems to be causing controversy is that students are telling people with national columns in the press that they're not welcome. No-one actually cares about people preventing views from being aired, because no-one hears about it. For example, if I recall correctly Bindel used libel threats to stop the press linking to or providing details of academic criticism of some shoddy, politically-driven research she was using to lobby the Government. No-one cared. Most people don't even know it happened. The students behind this find the notion that they're somehow silencing nationally-published journalists by telling them they're not welcome farcial, and I agree.

vidarh 11y ago
If they are not welcomed by anyone, a very telling demonstration would be to let them speak to empty rooms. If these students believed the rooms would be empty, I strongly suspect they wouldn't have a problem with letting them come and be humiliated while their opponents made fun of them outside. Presumably most of the opposition to these speakers is because they know perfectly well that they will have an audience, who want to hear what they have to say.