3 ms·

This title is misleading - can it be corrected to the actual title of the article? Because at issue isn't any ban on free speech, it's whether it's OK to ban i

by emn13 9y ago

This title is misleading - can it be corrected to the actual title of the article? Because at issue isn't any ban on free speech, it's whether it's OK to ban invited speakers expected e.g. to incite harassment, bigotry, or violence. And obviously there's a grey area there, but it's certainly no restrain on the message at all - merely the platform (not that that's irrelevant, but the distinction isn't irrelevant either), and I kind of doubt you'd want to provide a platform to everything regardless of what kind of hate speech they're spouting. There's a fine line between a constructive diversity of opinions, including ones you don't agree with, and giving a microphone to those saying nothing new, where the primary draw isn't the message itself, but the drama and tribalism surrounding it.

DanBC 9y ago
I used to strongly agree with you. Some people are fucking arseholes who promote and provoke violence, and there's no obligation to give those people a platform. But then you see who gets no-platformed, and it's not always those people. When Peter Tatchil (gay rights) and Germaine Greer (feminist) get considered for no-platforming we know it's gone too far. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/nus-no-platform-safe-space-policy-goes-too-far-threatens-free-speech-warns-peter-tatchell-a6999801.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/nus-no-platform-safe-sp... But we need to be a bit careful, some people are considered for no-platforming but are allowed to speak: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/05/boris-tatchell-greer-were-they-actually-no-platformed https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/05/boris-tatc...
- emn13 9y ago
  Yeah, I think the rule is overzealously applied, not sure it's necessary in the first place. But let's have that debate based on reality rather than imply something worse is going on, when it's not. (Personally, I think the idea of a minister getting involved and trying to control the debate is much worse than the student unions making relatively small mistakes, but hey, that's me).
vixen99 9y ago
No, it isn't misleading. "Universities could face fines for failing to uphold free speech if their student unions do not give a platform to speakers such as Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell, the higher education minister has said.". Such behaviour if it occurred would be 'disallowing free speech' and might be dealt with accordingly as described in the article. Your second paragraph epitomises the problem highlighted by the minister. It seems that you seek to judge free speech by considerations aside from its legality. I am not aware that Voltaire added a qualification to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
- emn13 9y ago
  It's misleading not because it's false (it's not!), but because it's selectively leaving out context. The original title is better. I'm not saying there's no free speech dimension here, just that the original (since-corrected) hacker-news title was more click bait than accurate summary.
- observation 9y ago
  This is the thing, the laws in the USA and UK already have provisions for death threats, so when you have to fall back on hate speech or hate crime it is not clear at all that 'hate' isn't merely an appellation that denotes 'people we don't like'. We talk of dog whistles, but the phrases hate speech and hate crime are also some kind of whistle. If there is a crime, then there exists a law to deal with it. What then does the 'hate' add? Subjectivity and political bias in my opinion. When I see my ideological enemy I don't get good feelings about them either, but they have the privilege of being able to talk, that should be what is right.

by emn13 9y ago

DanBC 9y ago

I used to strongly agree with you. Some people are fucking arseholes who promote and provoke violence, and there's no obligation to give those people a platform. But then you see who gets no-platformed, and it's not always those people. When Peter Tatchil (gay rights) and Germaine Greer (feminist) get considered for no-platforming we know it's gone too far. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/nus-no-platform-safe-space-policy-goes-too-far-threatens-free-speech-warns-peter-tatchell-a6999801.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/nus-no-platform-safe-sp... But we need to be a bit careful, some people are considered for no-platforming but are allowed to speak: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/05/boris-tatchell-greer-were-they-actually-no-platformed https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/may/05/boris-tatc...

emn13 9y ago
Yeah, I think the rule is overzealously applied, not sure it's necessary in the first place. But let's have that debate based on reality rather than imply something worse is going on, when it's not. (Personally, I think the idea of a minister getting involved and trying to control the debate is much worse than the student unions making relatively small mistakes, but hey, that's me).

vixen99 9y ago

No, it isn't misleading. "Universities could face fines for failing to uphold free speech if their student unions do not give a platform to speakers such as Germaine Greer and Peter Tatchell, the higher education minister has said.". Such behaviour if it occurred would be 'disallowing free speech' and might be dealt with accordingly as described in the article. Your second paragraph epitomises the problem highlighted by the minister. It seems that you seek to judge free speech by considerations aside from its legality. I am not aware that Voltaire added a qualification to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

emn13 9y ago
It's misleading not because it's false (it's not!), but because it's selectively leaving out context. The original title is better. I'm not saying there's no free speech dimension here, just that the original (since-corrected) hacker-news title was more click bait than accurate summary.
observation 9y ago
This is the thing, the laws in the USA and UK already have provisions for death threats, so when you have to fall back on hate speech or hate crime it is not clear at all that 'hate' isn't merely an appellation that denotes 'people we don't like'. We talk of dog whistles, but the phrases hate speech and hate crime are also some kind of whistle. If there is a crime, then there exists a law to deal with it. What then does the 'hate' add? Subjectivity and political bias in my opinion. When I see my ideological enemy I don't get good feelings about them either, but they have the privilege of being able to talk, that should be what is right.