
UK Universities: Is free speech under threat? - DanBC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45447938
======
barking
I find it surprising that the article makes no mention of the suppression of
debate on Israel/Palestine in UK universities.

[https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/academics-...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/15/academics-
take-southampton-university-court-over-israel-conference)

------
tom_
"certain" students, "certain" speakers, "certain" discussions - I just can't
hear the word "certain" any more without assuming that what I'm reading is yet
another angsty, hand-wringing, paranoid-tinged screed about Things These Days,
with no specific target, just this anger about these "certain" things that
these "certain" people do.

~~~
wemdyjreichert
Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese
state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though
China really does. Universities are supposed to be a place of shared knowledge
and diverse perspectives. Another example Berkeley, a school which, according
to USA Today, "has become known more recently for its violent demonstrations
between those with opposing viewpoints." Also, the article presented overall
statistics, focusing more on university trends than individuals. I think a
presentation of how widespread the issue is is more impactful than attacking
one particular person/university.

~~~
chipotle_coyote
_Example from the article: the one about Chinese students offended by Chinese
state discrimination against Tibetans. The school removed it, even though
China really does._

The full text of that example from the article is:

"At the University of Sheffield, Chinese students complained about a film
showing state discrimination against Tibetans in China containing an offensive
phrase. It was replaced with a different film, still showing discrimination
against Tibetans."

It seems to me the last sentence there is rather important for context.

 _Also, the article presented overall statistics, focusing more on university
trends than individuals. I think a presentation of how widespread the issue is
is more impactful than attacking one particular person /university._

Well, yes, and the overall statistics it presented strongly suggest that the
answer to the question in the headline -- "Is free speech under threat?" \--
is "No, not very much."

~~~
LanceH
"No, not very much."

So, yes?

------
detcader
It is more specifically the case that the idea of free speech as a prized
element of a society is under threat, than the actual practice of free speech.
We need to be mindful of separate things: actual individual free speech events
happening, laws about speech, and society's consideration of free speech as a
virtue aren't all the same "free speech" thing.

But who is threatening the virtue? Who is The Real Threat To Freedom Here! I
think it's actually just various people in various political groups, from
progressive students at universities to people with actual power like NY
States's Cuomo with his radical anti-BDS laws and executive orders.

~~~
kentm
I like the distinction here. I find the "no platforming" question the most
troublesome, because there should be freedom of association and one should not
be forced to provide a venue for views that they disagree with. But at the
same time, there is a point where limiting access to a venue has a real
detrimental effect on free speech.

Universities have an obligation to provide a wide variety of dissenting views
and not be eco chambers. But at the same time they have limited space and so
they must, at some level, pick and choose which speakers get access to those
venues. How does one choose which ideas are valuable enough to get access to
limited space?

~~~
detcader
It's mind-boggling that it has to be limited. What are universities for? Every
day every university should have hundreds of guests thinkers and grad students
streaming through doing paid speeches and Q&As. If half of them are Alex Jones
fraudsters, ok, let students protest and leaflet outside all they want, which
would be even _more_ exchanging of ideas and facts.

~~~
kentm
_It 's mind-boggling that it has to be limited._

I meant that in terms of physical space availability, of which there is a
finite amount. Theres only so many conference rooms that can house a visiting
guest speaker.

~~~
furgooswft13
I don't think that's a real issue. It's not like all the controversial
speakers are trying to speak at the same university at the same time. Usually
these spots are planned weeks or months in advance, plenty of time to book a
room.

In fact most of the spots that have been called off were canceled well after
they were scheduled and confirmed. If a university for whatever reason does
not want to host the speaker at all, then just come right out and say so.
Saying "Oh so sorry, we're all booked for the next 6 months!" is just a
transparent excuse.

~~~
kentm
Its not specific to those examples though. Think of it like a thought
experiment: a university literally can't host everyone so there's _some_
criteria by which a guest needs to be judged.

In America, a lot of the spots were cancelled, IIRC, because protests
necessitated increased security that couldn't be arranged or paid for. I'm not
sure thats on the university.

~~~
burfog
Protests are an excuse. Protests are allowed and even encouraged by the
university.

If the university actually wanted to stop protests, it would be trivial.
Simply remove all support for protesters. (make this known in advance) This
means: access cards stop working, transcripts are made unavailable, employees
are fired, degrees are revoked, scholarships are terminated... some of this
can be retroactive too.

When this has been done even in relatively limited form, protesters quickly
stopped causing trouble. When the university gives tacit approval to the
protesters, things quickly spiral out of control.

~~~
kentm
Protesting is a pretty fundamental right and societal value in America though.
Cracking down on protests is, in my view, just as authoritarian as what the
universities are accused of.

~~~
furgooswft13
Rioting is not a fundamental right. An actual peaceful protest would not
require prohibitively costly security arrangements.

~~~
kentm
Whether something is a riot is often subjective and a lot of security
arrangements are made for peaceful protests. After all a peaceful protest may
turn into a riot. Or it may remain peaceful.

------
dickinson99
UK doesn't have free speech to begin with.

~~~
favorited
"Free speech" is a loaded term. In the US, you can't just say whatever you
want without consequence, which is what lots of people seem to think "free
speech" means.

Neither slander nor obscenity are protected by the First Amendment. Same goes
for so-called "fighting words." Incitement of lawlessness is not protected.
Incitement of suicide will likely be tested soon, but a lower court has ruled
it is not protected.

And that's just a fraction of the types of speech not protected by the US
Constitution.

------
circlefavshape
An odd headline, given that free speech is only a 'negative' right in the UK

~~~
DanBC
No it isn't. Read the convention rights.

------
WilliamMayor
It tickled me that Westminster University has a policy of not allowing people
to speak who are intolerant of free speech. Presumably no representative of
the university can ever speak. That must be hard for them.

~~~
crooked-v
[https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-
precept-1...](https://extranewsfeed.com/tolerance-is-not-a-moral-
precept-1af7007d6376)

------
kadendogthing
Betteridge's law of headlines.

