4 ms·

Why should the Oxford university let you speak about whatever on their premises? Is it free speech you want or is it compelled speech?

by mmarq 4y ago

nailer 4y ago
That’s a good question but not a response to my post addressing labelling people that disagree with the mainstream narrative as ‘insane’’.
vixen99 4y ago
In many cases, these are invited speakers so compulsion doesn't come into it. How would you get to speak if you're not invited ? This list makes interesting reading. These are people "banned from speaking at universities in the UK and Ireland, or faced campaigns to silence them, or sack them for their views. https://www.afaf.org.uk/the-banned-list/ https://www.afaf.org.uk/the-banned-list/ Students wishing to hear all sides of a controversial issue connected with any of these banned folk are out of luck even if they organize a private gathering on university premises. Higher moral authorities prevail - we are told. Perhaps the core debate should be with these people.
- yunwal 4y ago
  Compulsion comes into it if you start forcing Oxford to give platforms to speakers that go against the stated values of Oxford.
- altacc 4y ago
  Skimming that list, it seems to be bulked up by many who faced objections and protests but still spoke at the talks they were invited to. Them attending to talk whilst having protests is respecting free speech of everyone. Those whom object should not have their freedom of speech silenced in favour of one other's. People don't like protests when it's against them or something they don't support but protest is speech.
onetimeusename 4y ago
There are many free speech laws and I think the way they are applied to charities like Oxford and ancient institutions is interesting. Compelled speech is dangerous and wrong, yes. I think if you are a trustee of a charity you also should be required to uphold the principles of that charity or form a new one entirely that is more agreeable. But hijacking a charity for a different purpose than it was intended is wrong. If the administrators, trustees, and professors would prefer that Oxford have a political lean and remove any who disagree that could violate the terms of the university's constitution and history. Obviously this didn't start out of nowhere. First of all, the university has regulations on free speech[1] which are quite unrestricted. That does not mean the university enforces them that way. So the law could be said to be forcing the university to be less biased in their judgement of speech. Bringing up Holocaust denial is like invoking Godwin's Law irl. There is no mention of what views the people with grievances actually think. Presently the university has charity status. That restricts their political speech, this could be another debate. They also receive public funding. I suppose if the university administration and professors admitted to having a bias, it could threaten their funding. I don't think compelling speech is correct but I also think it is almost certainly a violation of the charity status and Oxford regulations to underhandedly enforce political views. [1]: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/life/clubs/clubs/registered-clubs/rules-regulations/freedom-expression https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/life/clubs/clubs/registered-cl...
- mmarq 4y ago
  > I don't think compelling speech is correct but I also think it is almost certainly a violation of the charity status and Oxford regulations to underhandedly enforce political views. The Oxford university is [check notes] a university. What you have in mind is the Speakers Corner, where everybody can go and speak about vaccines, children of celebrities, lizard people and whatever.
  - onetimeusename 4y ago
    no? Did I or did I not link to a policy by the university? The council and congregation do not have the right to violate their own constitution and laws by selectively enforcing them and using underhanded hiring tactics. If they wanted to make a private political activist club, they don't have that authority to do so even if it's impossible to enforce this. So the compelled speech is a blunt instrument against the rather delicate issue of free speech grievances at the university (given that the university has its own policy which may not be enforced properly)

Why should the Oxford university let you speak about whatever on their premises? Is it free speech you want or is it compelled speech?

by mmarq 4y ago

Why should the Oxford university let you speak about whatever on their premises? Is it free speech you want or is it compelled speech?

nailer 4y ago

That’s a good question but not a response to my post addressing labelling people that disagree with the mainstream narrative as ‘insane’’.

vixen99 4y ago

In many cases, these are invited speakers so compulsion doesn't come into it. How would you get to speak if you're not invited ? This list makes interesting reading. These are people "banned from speaking at universities in the UK and Ireland, or faced campaigns to silence them, or sack them for their views. https://www.afaf.org.uk/the-banned-list/ https://www.afaf.org.uk/the-banned-list/ Students wishing to hear all sides of a controversial issue connected with any of these banned folk are out of luck even if they organize a private gathering on university premises. Higher moral authorities prevail - we are told. Perhaps the core debate should be with these people.

yunwal 4y ago
Compulsion comes into it if you start forcing Oxford to give platforms to speakers that go against the stated values of Oxford.
altacc 4y ago
Skimming that list, it seems to be bulked up by many who faced objections and protests but still spoke at the talks they were invited to. Them attending to talk whilst having protests is respecting free speech of everyone. Those whom object should not have their freedom of speech silenced in favour of one other's. People don't like protests when it's against them or something they don't support but protest is speech.

onetimeusename 4y ago

There are many free speech laws and I think the way they are applied to charities like Oxford and ancient institutions is interesting. Compelled speech is dangerous and wrong, yes. I think if you are a trustee of a charity you also should be required to uphold the principles of that charity or form a new one entirely that is more agreeable. But hijacking a charity for a different purpose than it was intended is wrong. If the administrators, trustees, and professors would prefer that Oxford have a political lean and remove any who disagree that could violate the terms of the university's constitution and history. Obviously this didn't start out of nowhere. First of all, the university has regulations on free speech[1] which are quite unrestricted. That does not mean the university enforces them that way. So the law could be said to be forcing the university to be less biased in their judgement of speech. Bringing up Holocaust denial is like invoking Godwin's Law irl. There is no mention of what views the people with grievances actually think. Presently the university has charity status. That restricts their political speech, this could be another debate. They also receive public funding. I suppose if the university administration and professors admitted to having a bias, it could threaten their funding. I don't think compelling speech is correct but I also think it is almost certainly a violation of the charity status and Oxford regulations to underhandedly enforce political views. [1]: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/life/clubs/clubs/registered-clubs/rules-regulations/freedom-expression https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/life/clubs/clubs/registered-cl...

mmarq 4y ago
> I don't think compelling speech is correct but I also think it is almost certainly a violation of the charity status and Oxford regulations to underhandedly enforce political views. The Oxford university is [check notes] a university. What you have in mind is the Speakers Corner, where everybody can go and speak about vaccines, children of celebrities, lizard people and whatever.
- onetimeusename 4y ago
  no? Did I or did I not link to a policy by the university? The council and congregation do not have the right to violate their own constitution and laws by selectively enforcing them and using underhanded hiring tactics. If they wanted to make a private political activist club, they don't have that authority to do so even if it's impossible to enforce this. So the compelled speech is a blunt instrument against the rather delicate issue of free speech grievances at the university (given that the university has its own policy which may not be enforced properly)