Johnson Attacks Universities: The Higher Education Bill Explained

[@Veemo590]

do find it ironic about the whole freedom of speech while pushing extreme anti protest laws

[@halleffect5439]

Science never had freedom of speech, because it would let creationist, flat earther etc view equivalent then.

[@PlayerWellKnown]

Good point.

[@ryanconnor9240]

It isn't ironic to Tories, it promotes their regressive reactionary hierarchical based world views of society. Maybe we should just start to debate the rights enjoy by the invisibility of being white and straight. If gay marriage is up for question, should straight people be allowed to get married or should their marriage only be a religious, and not a legal procedure?

[@SaintGerbilUK]

True, I can see why though as the riots were both violent and destructive, but that's not speech, it's action.

[@SaintGerbilUK]

@@ryanconnor9240 well marriage technically is a religious ceremony, and the law has encroached on it. You have been able to have civil unions for years but demanded that it must be a marriage, pushing out religion for government.

[@natbarmore]

How the _heck_ is this really expansive version of “freedom of speech” gonna work with the UK’s “it can be libel/slander even if it’s true” defamation laws‽ What happens when someone says something defamatory and the university has to defend their right to speak?

[@dagingerdude]

because the uni just has to let them speak, and then can foist the blame onto this and the individual. a freedom of speech does not mean a freedom from consequences if you break other laws practicing it. As a guest speaker you are invited to talk about a topic, if you go off topic - ie start spouting hate, then it is hardly the fault of the university as they do not have the power of mind control. The individual then gets charged and boom, horrid person outs themselves as racist berk, no one can complain that the weren't allowed to express their shitty horrid pinion and we move on like adults rather than complaining about safe spaces not being safe for people who are meant to be entering rigorous academia where people and ideas are challenged.

[@Goulmy86]

@@dagingerdude scary statement. This is the second time this week I've seen common sense, in KZbin comments 😉

[@Nasrudith]

@@Goulmy86 That is common sense? I mean under "Freedom of Speech but consequences" goddamn Stalinist Russia qualified. Everyone didn't have their tongues removed but if you speak wrong, gulag for you!

[@fizzyb00t]

> the UK’s “it can be libel/slander even if it’s true” defamation law I don't think this is the case. My understanding is that truth is an absolute defence to libel.

[@Admin-nz8em]

we dont have defemation laws in the uk, only scotland has very vague concepts

[@JottoHearthStone]

remember guys, we need to legislate to protect free speech... whilst also breaking up protests for bieng too noisy.

[@Jack-cq9pv]

so we shouldn’t have free speech then? comparing to protests is a massive strawman.

[@tyler2212]

@@RubberGopher you're absolutely insane

[@JottoHearthStone]

@@Jack-cq9pv dude I'm pointing out the hypocracy, not advocating for no free speech. The point is that the right to protest and the right to free speech are very heavily linked.

[@Rinish473]

What about freedom of education

[@JottoHearthStone]

@@Rinish473 also very important, not sure what you're getting at tho.

[@SincerelyFromStephen]

The people claiming you win a debate by having the better arguments have clearly never debated an Internet personality. You don’t need a better argument, you just need to get the audience to like you more

[@jamesives4375]

Just learn to ignore the clapping seals and trust that good faith audience members won’t listen to them either.

[@theotherohlourdespadua1131]

That's the problem...

[@eryyc9638]

yes on the internet but at universities you should be expected or at least be taught how to dismantle and discredit bad arguments or change your mind. You also have anonymity on the internet the same cannot be said for universities, luckily.

[@kagakai7729]

@@jamesives4375 the clapping seals outnumber everyone else and have the right to vote. Anyone who's experienced at politics would tell you that the message doesn't matter anywhere near as much as the delivery and framing- a sufficiently charismatic speaker could sell literal genocide to an audience while a plain piece of white bread (like certain politicians you may know) would struggle to even get a child tax credit passed

[@SincerelyFromStephen]

@@eryyc9638 mmmm but that still doesn’t happen. The good faith understanding that you might find in debate classes at school are largely absent from real world debates where people aren’t attempting to change their mind, or change anyones mind. You can have the ability to pick apart a bad argument, but if the people simply don’t care because they don’t like you, you’re wasting your time.

[@krisjill5918]

If they're so worried about freedom of speech, why are they coming down so hard on protests?

[@Sparhafoc]

Mumble mumble.... look over there! There's dog-whistling going on here because unlike YT residents, the government knows that the reality is far different than the internet meme machine would have us believe.

[@wagie95]

They’re not. Protests that disturb people who have nothing to do with it are horrific

[@Sparhafoc]

Are protestors meant to go and stand quietly in a corner somewhere and not be seen or heard? Seems rather contrary to the entire point of protest! The right to protest is fundamental in a modern democratic nation. Every time that right is undermined, democracy fails.

[@jgill551]

@@wagie95 people have a right to protest however. There is no right to not be inconvenienced by a protest - otherwise there would have been no effect to most movements across the centuries. They've only worked because they've inconvenienced people to get attention.

[@nevreiha]

@@wagie95 people are only involved with them because the issues that are protested surround us in everyday things, an undemocratic leader will not listen to his workers needs unless he sees a negative impact to his margins, that being decreasing profits from strikes. This is one of the main ways that democracy and freedom manifests for people. If the owner of a business receives a request from an employee that seems reasonable, inconsequential, or that will not reduce or maybe it will improve profit, the owner will allow it. If a request is made for better pay and for resultingly less money to go into the owners pocket they will not listen. The only way to have the owner listen to the employees is this. I do not blame management and bosses as they are made to do the tasks of running around and they are incentivised to stay to the owners will to preserve their living income. I also do not see this as an issue for smaller organisations where relationships are often more personal and requests are more likely to be accounted for due to friendship, quite often the owner of a small organisation is also the manager and works for their income rather than taking profits from previously acquired things.

[@alexissandren1884]

So in reality this would give the Education Secretary total control over "Freedom of Speech" in universities in UK. It's simple power grab by the government to control what "controversial issues" that can be given a plattform.

[@tonyb9735]

You definitely won't be allowed to say that in future.

[@limetime1085]

Wouldn't it still require the university to take action? If the Education Secretary deemed something as not protected, would that also require the university to have already have taken action?

[@eryyc9638]

no they specificly describe what they mean by freedom of speech. So its not possible to just redefine "freedom of speech"

[@magnificentbastard5085]

@@limetime1085 Not necessarily. It could be that the Secretary fines the university because it took action and blocked a speaker who the Secretary has common political cause with. But it could also be that the Secretary fines the university because it didn’t act and allowed a political opponent of the Secretary to speak. And we all know the current Tories are more than corrupt enough to abuse this new power for personal, political and financial gain.

[@liamr194]

An entirely subjective interpretation of future events. Universities and the glass echo chambers within them have monopolised freedom of speech (within their four walls, admittedly) for a long time. They aren't going to arbitrate themselves and the role of academia should be educate not indoctrinate - both academics and their cult followers have wilfully misled those objectives. If you receive public money, as they do, you have zero authority to monopolise what side of the ideological spectrum is entitled to more airtime than another. I went to Uni' and left fully plugged-in to the Matrix, it took a lot of self-reflection (and therapy) to undo the damage of such a binary, ideological " education" Someone has to abitrate for a fairer, mutual environment lest we create another generation of neo-liberal robots who cry "discrimination" anytime someone challenges their world view/s

[@frankowot4]

Hacker: And what about the universities. Sir Humphrey: Yes, both of them. Says it all really...

[@estor974]

One of the greatest laughs of the whole series

[@iamme8159]

No, you got it wrong Sir Humphrey: The Government needs to support the Universities! Both of them!!

[@pete_lind]

Funny how in last 300 years there have been 20 PMs from Eton , not a single one of those got any degree from university .

[@TriangleChloros]

@@pete_lind ...Whut? The Eton PMs almost all got degrees from one of the two universities. Boris included. That's where the joke comes from, pretty much all the people who rule the UK went to Oxford or Cambridge.

[@jh5401]

that show deserves all the memory in the world. the satire was so on point

[@angelaslittlebit]

The only safe position for Universities, and especially student unions, is to completely ban all speakers, controversial or not. I cannot imagine my former student union ever being in a financial position where they could make such a risky call.

[@Vaderi300]

That would open the University to a complaint from any speaker wanting to score "Points" that the university was obstructing Free Speech for everyone.

[@firewarp8819]

No teachers giving speeches? what about teachers from other schools? no people from outside the university give speech or just some people from outside? who decides what a speaker is? is a story a speech? so many questions

[@fredbluntstoned]

Just will put in all contracts and code of conduct to not send out invitations without prior consent from the board.

[@horserous]

Saw Enoch Powell at University.

[@naponroy]

Banning speakers at university is literally the worse possible answer.

[@darrenblack5541]

Does this mean i can sue the university when the professor says "silence please". Every bit helps in paying off the education loan.😂

[@gingernutpreacher]

No but you might have a case if you want to use the ladies tolets one day and the men's another look up the jaguar case

[@jaimeduncan6167]

No, are you being obtuse or do you really have such difficulties.

[@darrenblack5541]

@@jaimeduncan6167 just joking

[@A.D.540]

@@darrenblack5541 you should have put emoji some jokes are hard to read without facial expressions

[@jaimeduncan6167]

@@darrenblack5541 Oh I see 😂

[@legomovieman2]

If only the Government allowed for Freedom of Speech outside of the University setting.

[@jamie.h.d7497]

1 step at a time brother

[@olibob203]

They do? Otherwise a comment on the internet like this would lead to imprisonment, I'm not a fan of conservative government. But this bill is needed. That goodness we don't actually live in the oppressive nations around the world, watch the clip in Russia where someone is asking people what they think of Russia, and if they talk they are arrested...

[@howdlej123]

​@@olibob203 Comments on the internet can lead to imprisonment in the UK, though more often than not they are issued fines by the court instead because its too costly to imprison someone in the UK for what little space there is in the UK prisons. Note i'm not saying that I disagree with the Bill, as someone who is predominantly left I despise the over the top woke cancel culture

[@jibjub2121]

@@olibob203 um, protest Bill? Ever heard of it?

[@eryyc9638]

universities are specifically to challenge old ideas or new ones for that matter.

[@PhoebeK]

The big problem is that this bill does not deal with the real problem which is that lecturers are overworked (well over full-time hours even for part-time staff) and insecure contracts (most junior lecturers are on one or two-year contracts or even hourly contracts). This level of overwork and insecure contracts curtails free speech more effectually than any complaints and depatfoming do. Lecturers and research students are often so overworked and struggling financially (most uni cities are very expensive to live in) that they do not have time, energy or resources to challenge the norms, and before achieving the doctorate or getting a permanent post doing so means that you will just not be offered work on some grounds or other which are legal even if everyone is well aware that it is because of changing academic norms you are not given the job. This bill means the government look like they are doing something but really does not address the problems in academia or the wider education system which lead to the lack of robust academic discourse.

[@neeneko]

That isn't a bug, it is a feature. The type of speech that tends to be curtailed by being overworked and vulnerable to firing is usually the type of speech that conservatives are fine with suppressing. It is the speech of the safe and privileged that they are concerned about since things that counter the powerful offend them.

[@PhoebeK]

@@neeneko I know I am on my way out of the industry, I was just pointing it out to those who do not know the situation within Academia in the UK and much of the western world.

[@christopherc8563]

that is not the problem to johnson, universities "grooming" liberals or progressives is, its a fake culture war issue like the US dont say gay bill, which desantis passed knowing its unconstitutional, violating freedom of speech in the first amend.

[@jontalbot1]

@@PhoebeK Hi Phoebe, All the idiots here think they know something but are just plain ignorant.Just like Michelle Donnelly in fact, unless you count reading Daily Mail headlines as research

[@Grim_Beard]

Phoebe, you're absolutely right about the egregious state of academic contracts and workloads - especially for early-career academics. However, I disagree that it leads to a "lack of robust academic discourse". Academic discourse is alive and kicking and, as has always been the case, fresh academics coming into a field are often the drivers of challenges to stale ideas.

[@lorebiter]

Seems like the easiest way to comply would be to just never invite political speakers at all. Why risk the fine?

[@mckenziewilliamhowells233]

Unfortunately it's not just political speakers who suffer from deplatforming: comedians, actors, activists are all subjected to it. The easiest thing for universities to do would be to cancel these activities altogether, albeit at great cost to the opportunities of students to be exposed to debate and the great thinkers and entertainers of various fields.

[@bertrambolsingbruel3829]

@@mckenziewilliamhowells233 Hopefully that makes them actually vote these clowns out that has planned to make this a reality

[@VolkerHett]

Here in Germany we just had a case where a biologist was not allowed to hold a speech at a university. She was considered "transphobic" by the law students at that university because she claims that biology knows only two sexes. I don't know about her political agenda, but what little I know about biological sexes there is XY and XX. With some very rare mutations where there are three instead of two chromosomes.

[@matomatic4599]

​@@VolkerHett There are technically 6 biological sexes in humans: XY typical male sex XX typical female sex __ X XXY XYY XXXY These other sexes are rare 1 in 1000 IIRC. So tbf the biologist speaker's claim was questionable (if those were her words). However I somewhat doubt she was transphobic.

[@stevec6427]

The simple solution is for universities to stop organising them and leave a student group to do it outside of the university.

[@bazzfromthebackground3696]

Speech is free, so long as it adheres to the criteria of those in charge. "Say what you want, just not about me."

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Then it's not free speech.

[@rhysholdaway]

Prepare for the celebration of a new "Brexit Freedom".

[@lewis123417]

I take it your not a fan of freedom then

[@maddyl6988]

@@lewis123417 “Brexit freedom” is only the freedom to violate human rights

[@lewis123417]

@@maddyl6988 oh yeah, like what?

[@AlwaysEngland]

@@maddyl6988 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Oh the stupidity of some people.

[@smith5796]

Freedom of Movement?

[@mattheweagles5123]

I know that the intention of this legislation is to appeal to voters and nothing to do with Universities but I expect that this will stifle speech. Given a choice between being sued for stopping free speech or hate speech it will be much easier to not bother. Don't schedule any speakers or debates.

[@blindbrad4719]

Hi, I’d like to book the guest lecture hall for the entire year please…, hey Matt, I can’t do this Tuesday, do you want to fill-in for me?

[@mattheweagles5123]

@@blindbrad4719 what is the level of Liability Insurance like? I can stare blankly into space for 30 minutes if everyone wants to avoid getting sued.

[@blindbrad4719]

@@mattheweagles5123 would that be considered stifling your own freedom of speech? I would assume yawning or coughing would be tantamount to interrupting what you don’t have to say…, and in the most Extreme of cases sneezing for a prolonged period of time I would expect at least one complaint for each instance of explosive rhetoric, And appropriate compensation towards you from the University and student union. Perhaps I should offer the slots to soap box speakers that are loud mouth and determined enough not to allow such instances two hinder their rhythm.

[@mattheweagles5123]

@@blindbrad4719 it's a legal minefield. In fact it's best not to teach people anything in case you get sued because someone learnt the wrong thing. Or is that in itself anti-free speech? Or is it anti-woke? This is all too confusing. I'm just going to cancel myself until a less stupid government stops "culture wars" and just runs the country competently.

[@blindbrad4719]

@@mattheweagles5123 I mean it’s a bit of a quandary. We’ve tried most of the different types of government in the modern day so far. I think Anarchy is still on the table though? How about we swap all the bank accounts and identifications around? That sounds fun…, Watching Rishi Sunak become the mother of those 22 kids and trying to survive whilst Gary Glitter becomes prime minister… could supply some light relief I reckon. Not sure the five-year-old elevated to the prime minister‘s bodyguard would last long though…

[@valx7586]

"without adverse consequences" this is worryingly vague, this will absolutely be used if people just don't like you after you express controversial opinion "You can't hate me for being racist, it's the law"

[@bzuidgeest]

You can hate then, you just cannot fire them. A racist giving lectures to everyone on mathematics is not a problem. If they give politics lectures, then it is different. Sacking someone does nothing to stop then being a racist, it might even make it worse. Dialog and understanding works. Sacking is avoiding the dialog.

[@wagie95]

@@bzuidgeest agreed!

[@iAmTheSquidThing]

I think it then goes on to specify which "adverse consequences" it covers.

[@valx7586]

@@iAmTheSquidThing my point is that the legal wording is vague enough that it isn't solely applicable to what they specified they want it for

[@valx7586]

@@bzuidgeest I agree, I can simply see it being used for more than this by the wording of the law

[@rossdavies8250]

Yawn... The latest culture war "dead cat." Sorry, we are still looking at you, Johnson. Now bugger off, there's a good chap.

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

Don't get drawn into the 'culture wars' - its just a distraction from wealth inequality.

[@sublimetech]

I hate the word "woke": it has become a meaningless buzz-word right-wingers use for anything they don't like.

[@bestrafung2754]

Exactly, and it originated as a meme word on the internet in the USA anyway. We need to use actual words and not just make up words or misuse already existing ones from dumb internet memes. You know, the right say "we want our country back", but if they really did, they'd stop enforcing Americanisms on us. I want my country back, back from this stupidity and culture war right-wingers love. Back from too much American influence too.

[@soundscape26]

💯 Meaningless buzzword

[@mattgummerson8370]

I think everybody is sick of cancel culture and political correctness gone mad

[@LiquidLucidLuke]

@@mattgummerson8370 that was a lot of words to avoid saying woke

[@firebyrd437]

Totally agree

[@imsoboredhahaha]

Whilst in secondary schools and sixth form/colleges, Zahawi doesn’t want us being taught about politics/ historical topics like black history that “tarnishes” the reputation of British history.* *see government guidance from February 2022 from Nadhim Zahawi Why can’t we and our teachers have freedom of speech?

[@maxdavis7722]

Wtf are you talking about, britain teaches bad parts of its history. They aren’t stopping things that “tarnish” it being taught.

[@NeuroScientician]

Teachers have freedom of speech outside their work as everybody else. And, 'black history' can be summed under 'perpetual tribal warfare' :D

[@Yawnymcsnore]

Because teachers are little jealous commies who teach a warped view not actual fact

[@d2mik2]

They do teach about black history, what are you on? We even learnt which countries were involved and what horrible things they did, including Britain. Stop virtue signalling.

[@lewis123417]

Lol go to school and pay attention in history lessons

[@chrissetti1390]

All this will mean is that unis simply won't invite people to speak who have known controversial views. They'll be more cautious about hiring people with them, too. One again, a heavy-handed response from a clueless government will do the opposite of its intended function

[@MrOlleyOlley]

Won’t universities do this anyway so the do not need to deal with the drama. At least students may be able to complain that a university is not doing enough to offer unpopular viewpoints

[@Alex-ir9nx]

Could one argue that not getting invited to speak on a topic is in itself a breach on the freedom of speech, as you are getting blocked from your speech?

[@jonathanodude6660]

@@Alex-ir9nx no.

[@chrissetti1390]

@@MrOlleyOlleythe fact that there are speakers who have had invitations withdrawn and who face no platform protests suggests not

[@MrOlleyOlley]

@@Alex-ir9nx yes and no. They are not taking a platform away from a speaker but they would be purposefully not be giving people a platform to speak. They would be complicit in furthering the woke/cancel culture.

[@adamaenosh6728]

I wonder if this could end up being used to protect free speech on the left too. There will have to be documentation of the types of complaints deemed legitimate and complaints rejected, and discourses about whether the same type of speech in support of left vs right wing viewpoints is being treated the same way. Will the complaints system have enough transparency for people to scrutinise it in this way?

[@dariusgunter5344]

Personally I think it will be screwed more wright leaning for the simple fact that on universities that's the kind of opinions more often repressed instead of the left viewpoints, at least in my personal experience.

[@cobbler9113]

Left, right, centre and whatever else should be free to express their opinions on campus.

[@davancleere5957]

Freedom of speech is not a right wing thing it’s a human right to have an opinion

[@davancleere5957]

And the right doesn’t try to silence and deplatform ppl for there views because we actually believe in equality not just for ppl who agree with us

[@MoireFly]

Given how unseriously the government takes free speech (witness the crackdown on protests), and the fact that a significant part of the enforcement here is in the hands of the government via OfS (with ministerial oversight), I suspect that enforcement will be political, not reasonable. Furthermore, the whole setup tends to protect dangerous nutjobs from being deplatformed rather than sane viewpoints from merely being drowned out. But it's that latter problem that's the real problem with open and transparent debate today, and less so the former. But even that is missing the forest for the trees, because none of this is likely about free speech (not even by right-wing fascists!) The major impact won't be on speech, it'll be on platforms: this destabilizes universities and student unions, which are some of the few places left that have actual bonafide grassroots open debate. What are the alternatives? Social media is toxic and designed to enrage rather than build consensus; Conventional media is almost entirely either government owned or corporate owned, and both seem to have significant issues concerning editorial control and bias. But even where media outlets are honest and not trying to push an agenda, they don't generally have a forum for healthy debate, at least not one that is electorally significant (a few small discord channels or youtube comment sections hardly count). As a result, there will be precious few avenues for diluted popular opinion to form into a cohesive, politically relevant consensus. But I shouldn't overstate the impact of the bill: surely it won't entirely close down such forums, nor are institutes of higher education the _only_ remaining healthy forums, nor is this a new problem entirely created by this law. Instead, it's simply a step along a path to _restrict_ healthy debate, not promote it. TL;DR: don't get your hopes up. There is no silver lining here, but instead the badness on top hides layers of even worse traps.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

The quickest way to get this revoked is to start talking about neo-nazboi and pro-sharia talking points with a big banner saying "brought to you by Boris Johnson", then push video of it out to the Daily Mail and Facebook - go where Boris is dog-whistling and then carry on to the logical conclusion

[@gjvnq]

Genius!

[@Sparhafoc]

Good to see that others note this is dog-whistling to a specific electorate rather than having any serious basis in actual reality.

[@Weiszklee]

I hope university students and lecturers make full use of their new guaranteed freedom and openly call for the guillotining of the royal family without any negative consequences. I hope booing crowds and people who tell lecturers to shove it are protected as well. Never let conservatives forget that this goes both ways.

[@danielwebb8402]

Incitement to violence is always the bar

[@Weiszklee]

@@danielwebb8402 Oh the guillotining should happen legally of course, through an act of parliament. Then it's a political opinion, not incitement to violence.

[@Apostate_ofmind]

tell me you dont know what 'freedom of speech' is without telling me you dont know what freedom of speech is 😂😂😂

[@zesky6654]

@@danielwebb8402 only when it's against politicaly privilaged groups. Calling for violence against the downtroded has always been legal.

[@DaDunge]

@@theCConstantineC Cause it will lead to a bunch of conspiracy nuts exploiting it for legitimacy.

[@erebusvonmori8050]

You know normally I'd be for a bill like this if I didn't know that it was just being put in place to further overtax university budgets and stifle protests.

[@yt.personal.identification]

How does it stifle protests? Legit question.

[@firstnamelastname7941]

Doesn’t free speech imply right to protest?

[@erebusvonmori8050]

@@firstnamelastname7941 They're using it to come down on student protests because the SU is being held to these new rules as well.

[@CursedWheelieBin]

@@yt.personal.identification We don’t yet know

[@danielwebb8402]

@@erebusvonmori8050 So over 18s being held to account. Shock

[@illegitimateotaku794]

Why the hell does the education secretary (a political post) have the power to overrule the directives of a non-political government agency. This government is in the practice of conferring onto itself secondary legislative powers that it shouldn't have.

[@zilosis3794]

It's the education secretary, it controls schools. It already has the power to overrule to directives of a non-political government agency.

[@Nasrudith]

I don't get the objection. Isn't the whole point of political posts to delegate who has have accountability over non-political government agencies? Assuming political means "elected" in this context.

[@erikanders3343]

@@Nasrudith not elected, appointed by the prime minister. Basically a political appointee gets to use politics over policy

[@stefimcmaster1323]

@@erikanders3343 But that is already how ministerial oversight works, though you would hope there is a perm sec civil servant who shares that authority with the minister to guard against abuses of power both ways.

[@erikanders3343]

@@stefimcmaster1323 well not really, there are guardrails in place that allow civil servants to administer policy of the politicos without their directly taking action. This change removes them and allow a political appointee to rich in directly (and potentially corruptly) in and perform an action. They could do it for ideological reasons or be bribed and you have the same problem.

[@samgrainger1554]

Anyone with power will be able to claim that their right to freedom of speach has been violated. Anyone without power... People have always chosen who to invite.

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Yes, but then people protest people who have been invited, threatened with violence, and the universities cancel for the safety of those who wanted to attend. How is that free speech when only one side can be heard?

[@olivero.1877]

a biologist was supposed to give a presentation on the dualism of the biological sex and why it was good for evolution to develop two sexes. she also made clear that she did not mean to talk about gender. there were huge protests because of her and the university decided to cancel her presentation. just happened two days ago

[@Bibbedibob]

She wasn't cancelled for the content of that specific presentations, but for her public comments and believes before that

[@smith5796]

She sounds like a TERF.

[@mikemartin6748]

@@Bibbedibob Is that a defense or an admission? If the content of that specific presentation wasn't objectionable, then why cancel the presentation?

[@paulochikuta330]

@@mikemartin6748 to exaggerate slightly, would you let Hilter give a speech on job builting programs (he pinky promised to not be racist)

[@issysito320]

@@paulochikuta330 what does that have to do with the main poin

[@ReevansElectro]

Every “freedom” must have associated RESPONSIBILITIES. Everyone wants freedom with NO RESPONSIBILITIES. Those people are irresponsible.

[@AReligionByGod]

People still take responsibility for their words, it's just that society has been made weak to cater to certain groups. So because of this, people are no longer able to handle any kind of counter-arguments and just take it as offensive and wrong.

[@covfefe1787]

freedom of speech is literally freedom from responsibility aka throwing someone in prison or charging someone for a fucking hate crime while the police haven't solved a single robbery in England in 3 years. documenting someone on twitter for saying Nigger isnt a offense its plain lunacy and insanity.

[@grassytramtracks]

quite, if you say something that pisses people off, they have all the right to get pissed off, freedom of speech is not the right to be listened to People love to cry CANCEL CULTURE!!! if they say something inflammatory and people criticize them, it's like no shit! if you piss people off, they will and have the right to criticize you, who's the real snowflake? what you say has consequences so you have to take responsibility

[@bozimmerman]

I hate Guacamole. There, I said it. Seriously, if freedom of speech doesn't include hating things, then what does the word "freedom" mean again?

[@bozimmerman]

Also, I'm pretty sure Guacamole is made from baby poop.

[@Vaati1992]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean speech free of consequences, and a lot of of the times when right-wingers complain about their pet advocates being "deplatformed", they don't complain about left-wing voices (as in anything left of the center-left) being ALSO deplatformed, and that they want to sue universities that even allow students to protest controversial speakers NEAR the places where that speaker is set to hold their talks. There's a great opinion piece in the Guardian, "The ‘free speech’ law will make university debate harder, not easier" by David Renton, which cites examples of the fact that even in the UK Conversatives love attacking the free speech rights of the political left at universities.

[@greyrat_]

I'd prefer freedom of speech full stop. This shouldn't be made a partisan issue; authoritarians exist on both sides and they'll oppose free speech.

[@chheinrich8486]

Exactly

[@readisgooddewaterkant7890]

Freedon if speach does not mean freedon from consequences

[@mudkipsarelife4885]

@@readisgooddewaterkant7890 it's not really a consequence if they weren't allowed to speak in the first place

[@matthewframpton8737]

It feels to me that this policy is far LESS concerned with improving / safeguarding free speech within these institutions (and by extension improving the scope of "Rigorous Intellectual Debate" at Universities) - and far MORE focused with appealing to a voter-base of Older, Non-university-educated Tory-voters who really eat up all of the "Culture War" and anti-Woke" nonsense that the Daily Mail obsesses over.

[@danielwebb8402]

Indeed we do send a fake high proportion of children today to university and any analysis of voting by age groups does need to allow for the huge cohort effect before equating "those with degree" to "those clever".

[@timesathousand]

If I build a dock, I get to decide who gets to fish on it. If I build a stage, I get to decide who gets to talk on it.

[@joerolan1815]

It's important to allow students the freedom to express themselves. They need to learn info that's not native to their understanding so they may grow emotionally and socially.

[@lars_huson]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but not for ideas that have already been actively and scientifically disproven. Active debates on economy, migration or political systems add to personal development, but I don't need flat earthers or conspiracy theorists in my lecture hall.

[@swordofkhaine8464]

what about Darwinism and social-darwinism/eugenics. Topics which had scientific backing, but will almost certainly raise racial tension.

[@monkofmayhem1373]

What about debates where the scientific consensus is already politically motivated giving the false illusion of it being settled only because free speech wasnt permitted

[@foryou6888]

Fun fact, it's called freedom of speech. So what if they want to believe something else, it's their issue not yours (specifically flat earthers, im not referencing nazies etc) .

[@stavrospapadimitriou7631]

Why not? You can ridicule them with facts and logic?

[@MSNL123]

@@swordofkhaine8464 The key word here is "had". As they "had" scientific backing - and don't anymore - they fall on the category of ideas already disproven. Edit1: Darwinism - the idea species naturally evolve over time - has scientific backing btw, and it really doesn't seem to raise racial tensions on its own.

[@aL3891_]

The actual wording of the law seems alright though, even if its billed as "anti-woke", it seems it could be applied the other way as well.. i'm not really a fan of de-platforming, there are lots of ideas that we take for granted now that people tried to cancel in the past and i think it's a bit foolish to think there aren't unpopular ideas now that we'll take for granted in the future.. if someone has a bad take, let them air it and let the audience decide, silencing people like this just empowers them in their own fanbase

[@Running_Colours]

the thing is, if you look at someone like Jordan Peterson, he is actively spewing misinformation. It's not a matter of freedom of speech, it's that the uni has a right not to let morons speak. There are plenty of conservatives and right wing professors in universities, and they don't get fired as long as they use academical methods, and don't spread hate. it's easy.

[@irasponsibly]

The problem with letting people air 'bad takes' is that those 'takes' are often based on completely wrong interpretations of the facts. That's how you get mass covid vaccination hysteria or trans/gay panic: giving people spouting garbage a platform to spout it, and just hoping the audience doesn't listen.

[@noahlibra]

@@FlySuppaMayne Nah, deplatforming Alex Jones just gave him more legitimacy, and made more people take him seriously.

[@noahlibra]

@@FlySuppaMayne but his platform seems to have grown quite massively over the past few years, throughout all the COVID madness. My point is that perhaps it has emboldened these people, in addition to accelerating the rate of his growth via the controversy of deplatforming and current global events alone.

[@DaDunge]

Because giving creationists racists and climate change deniers equal time is not a good thing.

[@jdg7327]

You silence your opponent because you can't beat their argument (goes for both left and right). What's the point of higher academic pursuit if nobody can be challenged or such inquiries will be struck down in the name of "You shall not offend anyone"?

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Spot on, you cannot talk about anything without offending someone, like pancakes 🥞? Shh wouldn't want to offend the waffle 🧇 lovers out there...

[@solomonlam3157]

Honestly the bill doesn't go far enough. There need to be established penalty and sanctions against universities and individuals who don't protect free speech. Hell, even students who violate this should face consequences. No one has a right not to be offended. To take offense is your decision. Kinda like how we don't have laws that force you to say 'please' and 'thank you'. You can choose to dislike an individual or not listen to them. To use a famous example, Galileo was killed for espousing what church officials called heresy, an attack on their religion. The ability to be offensive, while an uncomfortable one, is one that must be implicitly protected to prevent groupthink and the descent into radical left or right. Fundamentally, this isn't a left or right issue (even though these days it's often the far left that's most guilty of this in the western world). It baffles me that so many people would willingly give up such an important right for 'political correctness'.

[@LongTran-kp3kz]

...Goddammit! Look, I'm against cancel culture and freedom of speech as much as anyone, so I'm actually kind okay with this bill. Censorship is wrong in principle so my view is that it's just not okay. This bill actually doesn't sound pretty terrible. But, yeah, free speech ain't free. There's actually a lot of room to abuse this if you're willing to be loud and obnoxious enough though. Conservatives, right wing lunatics, and hyper puritan 'lefties', I'm lookin' at you! That said, what the fuck does 'woke' even mean anymore?

[@LunarAkai]

the thing is "cancel culture" usually means that the "canceled" person does get even more attention, gets invited to a lot of talkshows, and so on,... :|

[@buddy1155]

"woke" is the opposite of being racist. So this bill essentially legalises racism.

[@Kage-jk4pj]

Get woke go broke strikes again.

[@000Dragon50000]

Except the characterisation of "Cancel culture" in opposition to Free speech is nonsense, because the people whining about cancel culture or whatevs are just upset that people are criticising their shitty actions. It's the reverse, in reality, freedom of speech HAS to include the freedom to criticise shitty people for doing shitty things. That's not censorship, that's just consequences for people's actions.

[@Pironious]

This is clearly a bill designed to protect embattled academics with vocal anti-trans views. Gotta protect people's right to be a bigot. With a healthy dose of crushing student unions.

[@Joker-yw9hl]

I'm all for ensuring freedom of speech in universities. Whether they be left or ring wing, whether I agree or disagree. Those saying "this will only give right wing speakers a platform" are totally missing the point

[@jaimeduncan6167]

In fact if it was just the right wing it will never pass. As it can be seen by images many of the "nonplataformed" are radical feminists that have a history of hatred towards men, and since they don't recognize transexual women as women they hate on the too.

[@Grim_Beard]

UK universities already have the same protections for free speech as everywhere else in the UK, plus we have academic freedom written into our institutional policies and constitutions. This is a non-issue, created by a government that doesn't like experts and expertise, many of whom and much of which comes from academia, because so much of what this government does is (to put it mildly) not entirely in accordance with the best available evidence.

[@DaDunge]

They were always free to get on their soapbox at any university square. I dotn see why they need to be given a right to a platform.

[@andreasarnoalthofsobottka2928]

I come across "freedom of speech" advocats on a regular basis in the comment sections when I advocate for responsibility, accountability and sensible limits. I must say that the most violent among those freedom speakers only mean THEIR freedom of talking bullshit and at the same time deny the right to others by shouting them down.

[@d2mik2]

Go on mate, let me hear one of the things you advocate for.

[@lewis123417]

You'd probably have people sent to prison for saying a man has a Penis and a woman has a vagina

[@jibster148]

Key phrase, in comment sections

[@yt.personal.identification]

And I will support your right to be one of those self righteous aholes in the comments section too.

[@LowIqGod]

Yeah let's just ban everyone we hate? Isolating everyone with problematic views will definitely help them moderate and reintegrate into society. University should be the #1 to push the limits with students being guided by their professors and having to argue against hateful talking points from a fundamental level

[@liamastill6733]

"not racist, just don't like 'em"

[@biocapsule7311]

Most people in the West seem to forget that speech isn't just speech, people with influences make any 'speech' specifically to incite certain actions. In there was no intent to incite actions, they wouldn't be making the speech in the first place.

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Nonsense, what does 1+1=2 incite as an action? Some speech is a call to action which there are laws around, a side from that you just want to censor people who you cannot argue effectively with.

[@huguesjouffrai9618]

Are you suggesting that speech is powerful? Thanks for blasting through an open door, I would never have guessed. And do you think that when our liberal democracies were founded with freedom of speech as a key pillar, people didn't already realize this? Yes, speech is powerful and therefore potentially dangerous. But censorship is the bigger danger.

[@raven-sf3di]

So speech is only there to convince others into action ... Then please explain small talk to me ,

[@biocapsule7311]

Oh yeah... you lot all just making "small talk" when you say gay people shouldn't have the same rights, or women shouldn't vote etc... if you have to be these disingenuous, you already lose your case. Freedom of speech protects you from government interference, not public censure (which is also free speech). Now you want the government to protect you from public censure. Because you very well know you aren't going to say something as benign as 1+1=2. People who fought for civil rights for example, do so even when they face both government and public censure of their time. They so anyway because it is the ethical thing to do. Wtf are you lot think you are fighting for when you fear public censure?

[@raven-sf3di]

@@biocapsule7311Bullies often use the concept of group think to justify their actions So did the people who justified burning witches People in charge of the church used to believe right came from god and used group think to justify control and bullying Now bureaucrats have taken the concept and think they're the new gods and can dictate to others what mythical rights they have But the concept of rights is such b.s the same as the concept of equality and the rest of the rubbish they made up The world at best is based on paradoxes and that multiple things can be true and false at the same time and this concept can flip depending on who is observing it, and it's not based on some holy truth or fact or belief that everyone must follow not when it's from god not from government and most certainly not from you Leftist like you are no different than the puritans you claimed to hate

[@oli073]

This is a very confusing issue to me. On the one hand I think freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our current western civilisation and on the other hand free movement of information has made it easier for dumb ideas to seem legit. What I'm not confused about is that this move is at best performative or at worst insidious ploy by the ruling party given that their stance on protests.

[@SaintGerbilUK]

But I'm sure you can give good arguments about why the dumb ideas are dumb? The answer to dumb speech is more speech calling it out, not censorship where the dumb ideas go unchallenged.

[@huguesjouffrai9618]

Dumb ideas have been proliferating for millenia. Fake news, propaganda, misinformation... None of this appeared with the internet

[@Ziffwolf]

@@SaintGerbilUK Good arguments don't work against dumb ideas. Those who hold dumb ideas simply reject good argument. That's why its more effective to starve a dumb idea of a platform thereby limiting its access to dumb people.

[@oli073]

Therein lies my confusion, does counter arguments work or not? Do we conclusively know this yet? I usually side with the former only because limiting free speech sets a scary precedent, as in what is acceptable today might be dumb tomorrow...then what do we do? Also, is limiting any form of speech a big "hands up, can't be bothered to find a more effective way to communicate" by the camp on the side of reason?

[@zotaninoron3548]

@@SaintGerbilUK How about now? You've had multiple people explain why your idea is dumb. Are you less inclined to continue spreading it? No? Exactly? The real issue is that people with dumb ideas think they deserve a platform. And they often complain about *other people using their free speech to critique that idea* as woke cancel culture. Being cancelled on twitter, for example, is only ever other people exercising their free speech, TOS violations aside.

[@CarlosKTCosta]

I completely disagree with the ideia that freedom of speech implies that people have to be given a platform to speak and with the notion that it has to come with no consequences. Just imagine this situation: I am a professor at a university, I am of the opinion that women should not attend higher education. Freedom of speech grants me the right to state my opinion openly without being arrested or put to court however, the opinion I just stated is evidence that I am not qualified to teach women because my judgment will be biased against them and thus it would be negligence on the part of the university to keep me as a professor. Here is another example: I am promoting an event to remember holocaust victims and there is a very prominent speaker that is being called to all major events lately but I know he is an Holocaust denier, should I be obliged to give him a platform on my event?

[@jessepost1108]

Both of those cases should be allowed. And then you create more speech to counter them.

[@CarlosKTCosta]

@@jessepost1108 so in your opinion I should have to tolerate a bad professional because of free speech?

[@TheLameFlameYT]

In the case of the uni professor, while he can't get sacked for that opinion, he most certainly can get sacked for actually implementing that opinion in the marking process

[@jessepost1108]

@@CarlosKTCosta Yes, you have to tolerate speech you disagree with. You seem to think that speech that is obviously obnoxious is easily separable from "acceptable" speech. But who, exactly, decides what's acceptable and what's not acceptable? You should plan on the person you least want to have that power someday having that power. You may end up on the wrong side of that determination some day.

[@joeppeters7001]

That's where the two concepts of freedom of speech and academic freedom collide. In your first example, it is indeed true that you cannot be arrested for simply stating an opinion that you have, even if it is a bad one. However, the academic freedom associated with tenure is specifically designed to protect professors from being fired because they said or believe in something that students or staff do not like. It can be abused, sure, but that is a price that must be paid to protect free inquisition. If you don't like a professor's opinion, you should try to win through debate and discourse, not threatening to terminate them because they said something you didn't like. As for your second example, there is a difference between inviting someone to speak at an event and rescinding that invitation because a mob decreed that the university shouldn't allow a specific belief on their campus. In the former case (yours), it indeed never is an obligation to invite someone to speak at your event. In the latter case, the university decided not to protect your speech and actively censors you from speaking because, essentially, the mob decreed so. It is a blatant display of partisanship, tbh. In both cases, there are statutes and penal codes that punish discrimination and hate speech in specific cases. Therefore it is the acting on the beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves that are actionable.

[@FlamingoPulse]

Wow, never did I think the UK is pulling a Florida with this Ironically, I say that as a Floridian myself and I hate what our guy is doing to our state

[@jonb914]

So basically the education secretary now gets to determine which speakers the universities have to invite instead of the universities themselves, which will be enforced via fine.

[@koenven7012]

As I understand it, it's more if someone is invited and then gets cancelled because of protests for instance, they can complain. But if they were never invited in the first place, they never were a guest speaker. this means that for instance official student groups can invite extreme speakers and the university can't deny them an auditorium.

[@maikocat]

@@koenven7012 However, a person could request to speak at a university and if the university refuses that request, the university could then be fined for not allowing "free speech", regardless of what the erstwhile speaker's topic was about. That, I think is the concern here. Also, by selectively applying the law (remember, it is at ministerial "discretion"), the government can choose who is protected to speak and who is not.

[@koenven7012]

@@maikocat I would say that a guest speaker is someone who is invited, but you have a point that there might be confusion. A lot will depend on the exact wording. As university, if this is true, I would put a '"speaker's corner" somewhere on a remote part of campus and then go: "we give you the right to speak, go there." technically within the law.

[@xouat]

@@maikocat That’s where the ambiguity over what constitutes free speech vs hate speech may be a problem.

[@anubis9151]

What? You seem to have understood 0 of the matter, it's the opposite, people had been invited to talk, but were then uninvited because of protests, which is so dumb because you're not forced to attend the speaches in the first place.

[@alexandermorrison9077]

I know "Compelled speech" varies greatly country to country. But its usually illegal in except in narrow situations. It would be interesting to see if the UK definition covers this or not. This might just be politicians wasting resources depending if their, Constitution/Charter of Rights/ Whatever their highest law, is allows it.

[@algovoice]

What. Protecting the right to free speech is compelled speech? I don't think you know what either one of those two mean. Protecting Free Speech is: Adam: "I believe A." Bob: "But I believe B." Adam: "I respect your right to say B even though I totally disagree with it." Compelled speech is: Adam: "I believe A." Bob: "But I believe B." Adam: "From now on, you aren't allowed to say B anymore and furthermore you need to say you believe A, otherwise you will be punished." This is anything but a waste of resources. If anything, it is perhaps one of the most basic and essential bills that will ever pass in modern British history.

[@Psyk60]

The highest law is whatever law parliament passes. So by definition whatever is in this law is allowed. Potentially it could be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but even that doesn't invalidate an Act of Parliament. It would put pressure on the government to change it if it were ruled incompatible, but strictly speaking the law would still be valid.

[@jonnomonodesu]

@@Psyk60 That would be the European Convention on Human Rights that the government intends to slowly opt out of now they've conned everyone into Brexit.

[@TriangleChloros]

The UK has no codified constitution, and no domestic law has higher status than any other law. The courts can declare the law inconsistent, but about the only time that might be a real issue for government is if a law manages to conflict with an international treaty the UK has signed. Otherwise they can just rewrite the law to make it compatible. Famously, for example, in the Belmarsh case it was decided that imprisoning non-citizens indefinitely without trial was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Which the UK is now planning to leave, and replace with something they *can* just rewrite at will. I'd also like to emphasise that that decision was made in *2004* , so it's not like it's some bit of ancient history that could never happen today.

[@YourGayOverlord]

@@TriangleChloros Exactly. The UK "constitution" does exist, but it's entirely implied by a series of laws and historical events dating back to the magna carta that creates the basis for the rights of anyone on British soil. But because these rights are only implied by other laws, those laws can be very easily changed by the legislature, adding or removing rights on a whim.

[@royhenderson9826]

Never try and control the TRUTH. 🇬🇧

[@cobbler9113]

It’s a shame this bill is necessary. I was at university from 2010-2013 and free and open debate was heavily encouraged by lecturers and eagerly taken up by students. It was perfectly possible for two or more students to have an incredibly strong and passionate disagreement in a seminar or elsewhere but remain friends and go out for drinks together afterwards. What seems to have happened since then has been nothing short of a travesty. If a guest invited to the university offends you so, don’t go to their talk. If in a lecture or seminar, if your way of “winning” the argument is to shut the debate down, that’s not winning, it’s cowardice.

[@tijmenwillard2337]

"If a guest invited to the university offends you, then don't go to their talk" I find this problematic, because it suggests being offended is your problem and not the problem of the offender. If you are offended by someone who is pretty racist, then should the racist be shut down or should you just shut up? The problem is that the university gives people a platform that really shouldn't have it. Universities make mistakes in judgement too sometimes. An example, my own university once invited a speaker who would dive into some of the technical aspects of the 9/11 terror attack. It turned out to be pretty poorly constructed arguments (pun intended) for conspiracy theories. The university later issued a formal apology for inviting the speaker, but it still gave this man a platform. Now had they shut down the speach before it happened, then under this bill, the conspiracy theorist would have been able to sue the university and I don't think that's right

[@d2mik2]

@@tijmenwillard2337 what if the person isn't being racist? Or some other form of bigotry? But you are still offended or angry, then it is your problem.

[@maddyl6988]

University is still a place full of free and open debate! We debated puberty blockers in an ethics lecture, which lead me down a path of learning all about trans healthcare. Many of my fellow students are Palestinian, so I’ve gotten to hear the other side of the story of that war, which is rarely even mentioned elsewhere for fear of seeming antisemitic! When lecturers went on strike, we all debated the causes, consequences and ethics of striking amongst ourselves and with our students’ union.

[@iamjamie9562]

@@tijmenwillard2337 Firstly, offence is a reaction. I can say something with intent to provoke that reaction, but I can't make you offended at something. YOU have chosen to take offence, so it is not fair to blame what you have listened to or seen for your negative reaction in this context. If you know you will not like something and will not have your postition changed, do not expose yourself to it. In an environment that should be expanding critical thinking skills (like a damn university), it is not the place of others to stop someone from speaking. It is still of benefit to have "racists" speak, because you can then debate why their ideas are intolerant and morally wrong. If you can't argue with bad ideas, the problem is with you. There also exist the major issue in the modern day that many things labled as "rascist" and so on are by no means objectively so. Shutting down "problematic" speakers or ideas on that basis is why the younger generations (of which I am a member) have the critical thinking skills of a boiled cabbage, at least from my experience.

[@tijmenwillard2337]

@@d2mik2 and what kind of speech exactly would make you angry to an extent that you can create a protest movement out of it? That, without it being bigotry or racism.

[@mahoo3256]

As a uni student this bill is probably the first and only thing Boris has done right in the past few years. Ironic he’s shutting down protests whilst putting this bill forward, but definitely a needed bill. Right now if a uni student or lecturer says they have a political opinion or political agenda you can all but guarantee it’s left, usually pretty far left. As a centre leftist I actually want to be exposed to both sides of the spectrum - and what to see some diversity of thought and ideas

[@jonathaniyere3203]

Both sides of the spectrum i.e. "What if certain humans should have rights and what if humans shouldnt have rights" obviously both are equally valid and deserve the exact same platform.

[@nataliekhanyola5669]

Lol!! What the fuck is a "centrist leftist"???? You're probably just some liberal.

[@jontalbot1]

Disagree. It’s a stupid waste of time. The only good thing he has done is unstinting support for Ukraine

[@mahoo3256]

@@jontalbot1 fair actually thats also a good thing he's done but ur wrong about it being a waste of time -- if u have been to any uni in the country from oxbridge to bishop grossteste there's a massive leftist bias and intolerance of right leaning ideas

[@nienke7713]

This isn't about freedom of speech, but entitlement to a platform and freedom from consequence.

[@friedawells6860]

There are natural consequences built into freedom of speech being that if your ideas are crazy or dumb no one will listen to you. There's a lot of fear mongering going around saying that free speech means someone will be able to run up to you and scream into you face and you won't be allowed to do anything. That is not it, neither in this bill nor in any other definition of free speech. It just means that if someone wants to host a lecture they can host it, and every other person is free to attend or not attend, to agree with them or critique them or ignore them but you just can't deplatform or prevent them from speaking to the people who want to hear them out, regardless of how bad/crazy/dangerous/offensive you think their ideas are.

[@nienke7713]

@@friedawells6860 they literally want to ban universities from using the consequence of no longer being allowed a platform for someone who says awful things.

[@nienke7713]

@@friedawells6860 they can still freely speak using their own platforms, but this bill wants to force universities to let people use their platforms

[@veryfitting]

The inherent contradiction of this law with that of the current hate speech laws means we'd need a high court decision, eventually, to decide which is legally paramount. The other side is the election win, every single MP who doesn't vote to pass this is going to have to answer the question "why don't you support free speech?". Career, ended.

[@youtubeoppressivecensorshi8047]

Good I support free speech anywhere in the world stupid fake black Vice President making her number one priority cyber bullying . So her idea throw someone in a cage for being a big meanie lol stupid women feminist just want enforce her dumb ideas on ppl. I wish someone would remove her from office .

[@DaDunge]

This has got nothing to do with freedom of speech.

[@emilyscloset2648]

@@DaDunge thing is, it is too easy to spin the framing to make any opposite look like they are against free speech

[@kuntpunt4386]

this is exactly why we should name bills with numbers not titles...

[@PaddyDAngelo]

I think the problem people need to figure out is, claiming free speech does not entitle you to be a bigot

[@MrMGN666]

I think the problem is the word "bigot" becoming so all encompassing. I have grown incredibly concerned about the state of modern ideas on race. My white girlfriend has been accused of "fetishising" by brown skin, I feel increasingly like my skin is just there to be used as a political pawn and I refuse to think of myself as a victim. But when I try to speak out about any of it I'm accused of having "internalised colonial mindset" I'm called a bigot, and then suddenly I'm not brown anymore but "white adjacent" and not entitled to an opinion. I'm genuinely scared to speak out for fear of being kicked off my course. I do believe in "white privilege" but it's privalidge to just repeat these poisonous "woke" ideas and never have to actually think about the consequences.

[@maddyl6988]

When will people learn they’re not entitled to a platform?!?! So long as it’s not hate speech, you can say whatever you want in a lecture or a town square. But don’t sue universities for not inviting you to speak about how the world is flat or how trans men are young girls trying to keep up with social media trends

[@danielwebb8402]

Are they both settled issues? Or just one is?

[@benwyness148]

Who defines what hate speech is?

[@danielwebb8402]

@@benwyness148 Only incitement to violence. "I don't think a transman is a man" isn't hate speech. "We should all punch the next transman we see in the face" is.

[@maddyl6988]

@@danielwebb8402 it’s very well established that trans men are men and the world is round

[@maddyl6988]

@@benwyness148 many governments, multi-governmental organisations, and non-governmental organisations have defined hate speech over the years

[@Foxino]

All because speakers got their slot cancelled because no one wants to hear their hateful bollocks? It isn't cancel culture, it's consequence culture. You say hateful things and people won't want to listen to you anymore.

[@scarletcrusade77]

How do people like Jordan Peterson say 'hateful things' when he got protested at universities in the UK?

[@yoyo-lf3ld]

Someone was invited then was cancelled because some student don't like what they say and you say they aren't cancelled while simultaneously saying they are.

[@soundscape26]

But in that case it's still better to allow them to speak and then waiting nobody shows up to listen.

[@vic_ee]

The problem with people like you is that everything you don't agree with is classified as hateful. Tell me why Jordan Peterson getting barred from speaking at Cambridge in 2018 was justified. What opinions does he have that are soooo hateful?

[@Foxino]

@@soundscape26 That would be a waste of an appearance fee.

[@elbalerto]

Maybe add a section that absolves academic institutions of liability when it comes to the opinions of their speakers--putting the risk of hate speech on the speakers themselves. Other than that, we absolutely need to protect the academe from becoming an echo chamber. We need a platform where dissenting opinions are raised, rebutted, and encouraged. If we don't, then you get extremism on both ends of the spectrum--worsening the culture war we're seeing right now.

[@sheeptasticSeb]

This sounds like the "good people on both sides" claim 😬

[@nienke7713]

Universities are echo chambers to an extent because dealig with science as well as being exposed to people from many different backgrounds makes it really hard to keep holding on to unscientific beliefs and xenophobic beliefs, and the few who do can't stand up in an honest intelectual debate because their reactionary standards of debate simply won't do in an academic environment.

[@nintendoswitchbrit4201]

I think that protecting freedom of speech is one of if not the most important things for a free country and this is looking like an important move to ensure that you don't have to be afraid of holding a certain opinion that may be unpopular IMO you should be free to say whatever you want as long as it does not insight violence against one or more people.

[@gingernutpreacher]

Agreed but we are not

[@jontalbot1]

Quite right. So much more important than doing something about the average £45k debt of a graduate in England. They are going to be in debt all their lives so they might as well get used to it. It’s not important.

[@AvtarSDuhra]

When students only learn what they already know, that's not called learning but reinforcement. So it's important to have varying ideologies and perspectives, this helps students improve socially and emotionally; giving rise to a truly educated society.

[@MrAapasuo]

yes, learning how earth is flat truly is important to widening students horizonts

[@eryyc9638]

@@MrAapasuo learning about flat earthers which forces you to learn how we know the earth is not flat could really widen students perspectives.

[@MrAapasuo]

@@eryyc9638 sure, and since its only fair we should teach it as totally valid viewpoint, a serious theory and not teach how it is wrong on any level since that would be halting their free speech

[@eryyc9638]

@@MrAapasuo nobody should TEACH that but they should be able to express that viewpoint. Teaching evidently wrong thing does not or should not fall under free speech. Just talking about it does.

[@SCORPION5O]

Oh no what about my precious ideas which cannot stand up to criticism! We must stop this ism or ist from talking. But you say cancel culture doesn't exist.

[@johnsamuel1999]

criticism is not cancel culture . cancel culture involves making the person lose their job , or losing a business deal etc ...

[@lewisdoherty6869]

Other than this being a difficult line to walk between freedom and hate speech where is the issue? We should be able to have an open debate on even fringe topics. I may be missing something though.

[@alizaidi2893]

The problem as brexit has proven, is that the English public is so susceptible to feelimgs based lies that no amount fact based arguments will shifted them.... Racists are learning that the best why for them to integrate their ideas into the main stream is to be more subtle with their messaging instead of going full Hitler. How does a university now deal with a speaker who has a long history of advocating for ethno states, but won't actually use the words ethno state to describe it?

[@Draggonny]

Open debate on fringe topics has and will always be a thing. No platforming is a topic worthy of debate. On the one hand it's educational to have people with quite extreme views speak about those views but it is then seen as a poor use of university funds to pay those people to speak as this can be seen as funding hate groups, which is illegal. Freedom of speech works both ways. If extremists are making public appearances freedom of speech allows us to protest against their ideas and loudly disagree with them. The only point where this crosses the line is when it goes into already illegal behaviour such as property damage, threats and violence. All this law change would mean is that universities cannot back down in the face of protests. So they risk illegal escalation of protests and the PR nightmare that will follow. This will probably have the opposite of the intended consequences. Universities will become even less controversial because they cannot cancel speakers as a result of bad PR. They will have to 100% commit to every speaking engagement or be prepared to pay fines.

[@Froge0]

Hate speech is a social construct

[@Brandon-oc8lr]

I totally agree, if its actually a debate thats being had. A debate would ideally involve two sides both using facts to form a logical conclusion. If thats the case then yeah sure, I agree, it doesnt matter how fringe the idea is, so long as its based on facts. However time and time again these types of laws are used to platform fringe ideas that have already been disproven. You cannot, by definition, debate a flat earther for example. One side is beholden to facts and the other can make things up as they go along - thats not a debate, thats like going into a boxing match where one side is stuck with boxing gloves and the other can pull out a knife if they want to. “Debating” in this scenario only serves to give the appearance of legitimacy to a repeatedly disproven idea. Of course here im using flat earth as an example but its fairly benign either way, but hopefully you can see how these are often just excuses to legitimize much more dangerous ideas.

[@KaitlynFedrick]

When I was at university (which is top 10 in the country for bioscience teaching) they had an anti-evolution, young earth creationist speaker come in because of a desire to appear balanced. This accomplishes nothing positive

[@Aralluen]

So former professors at university who are antivax are going to be able to sue schools for being fired? And how far does this go, are students going to be able to sue because they were punished for discriminating against people

[@Hiei-95]

these people don’t even know what whole means, they think it means diversity and PC culture but it has never meant this. It so hilarious

[@michdem100]

Oh great, in other words students and faculty can basically open each lecture saying anything and neither uni nor students could do anything about that. This surely won't backfire horribly.

[@karenturner8739]

That is free speech. Freedom.

[@michdem100]

@@karenturner8739 No, it's not. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything you want and expect no consequences. Free speech just means that the government cannot persecute you for what you're saying.

[@covfefe1787]

@@michdem100 universities are a government institution even if they are private they must be regulated to be as Free as possible. Universities should have exactly ZERO power to force a student to say or believe in something against their will.

[@michdem100]

@@covfefe1787 The issue is that universities are fundamentally institutions of knowledge. If somebody there would be teaching nonsense that have been disproven years ago based purely on they should be kicked out imminently. Like do you want students or professors openly teaching flat earth or saying Boris Jonson is a furry? Because this bill would mean they could now.

[@grassytramtracks]

yes, part of free speech is to disapprove of and choose not to listen to people

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

Students could just decide not to attend a talk…

[@kathleencaffrey1716]

Freedom of speech isn’t a right to an audience. It assurance you won’t be targeted by the government. So few understand this.

[@mceajc]

If someone at a university wants to stand up and talks about how the holocaust never happened; and that eugenics, ethnic cleansing and burning books truly are great ideas, and please won't you join me in forming a political group to advance this position - I think they should be STRONGLY discouraged from being able to do so. I don't think that someone should be able to sue a university for being denied a platform to speak these ideas to impressionable minds.

[@xouat]

As much as I hate the ideas you mentioned, a University is exactly the place where they would get discredited on the basis of a factual discussion, not on the basis that certain simply and potentially arbitrarily not permissible.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@xouat This would be true if they were spouting entirely new ideas. But they are not. These things have been extensively discussed. And rejected by academia. Noone has been cancelled for things never said before.

[@xouat]

@@XMysticHerox Sure they have, all the time. That’s why it’s a slippery slope.

[@XMysticHerox]

@@xouat That makes absolutely no sense. Also you know slippery slope nonsense tends to be a fallacy right?

[@DaDunge]

@@xouat But that's not what's going to happen what will happen is the nutjobs will record themselves speaking or debating at universities and then post heavily edited versions on the Internet to make it look like they did well.

[@Sidorio]

This makes me very nervous. This opens the door to all sorts of harrassment.

[@friedawells6860]

No it doesn't. Hosting a controversial lecture is not harassment.

[@silenceiscompliance.]

The left are equally capable of harassment as the right and they have been calling the shots in the UK for a very long time. I have been a victim of such harassment.

[@kathleencaffrey1716]

@@silenceiscompliance. because you define free speech as is the right to an audience. Which is not what it is. It protection from governmental retribution. If people don’t won’t to hear you, they don’t want to hear you. They have the right to make that call as well.

[@silenceiscompliance.]

@@kathleencaffrey1716 You're entitled to not to listen to an opposing arguement but if you're unwilling to listen, you are in danger of becoming intolerant. Not sure what you mean about it being protection from government retribution? ... everyone is entitled to vote in elections. As I said earlier, if people aren't willing to listen that's their problem, not mine.

[@kathleencaffrey1716]

@@silenceiscompliance. is it? Laws like this are popping up all over. People make it clear that they aren’t interested in hearing a speaker and are fine, shut down or even arrested. Schools, knowing a particular speaker will blow up problems on campus are forced to spent already stretched budgets on security for an event that already isn’t going to break even or face closure. Why? You have decided you are entitled to an audience. Again, that’s not freedom of speech. That’s just being an incredibly immature person. Rejection stings. But it is part of life. Growing up means learning to deal with it.

[@CrystalblueMage]

Freedom of speech is nice. It brings some people out where we can see them and take note of them, and free-speak against them. And it also prevents discourse from being needlessly one-sided.

[@DaDunge]

It's not needless one sided it's one sided because we dont want to have to reconquer the same ground over and over against people who have no desire for rational discourse.

[@emilyscloset2648]

@@DaDunge +1

[@KLGnation]

So they want to make it illegal to criticise the government but apparently care about freedom of speech in universities.

[@simmy1251]

And they’ll probably always favour free speech over hate speech

[@cobbler9113]

Hate speech is completely subjective. Heck, I could say what you just wrote is hateful against a fundamental tenant of Western civilisation and report you to the Police.

[@lewis123417]

Uhhhhh well yeah, you can't have free speech without hate speech.

[@tijmenwillard2337]

@@cobbler9113 which also means you can cover up hate speech as free speach

[@hyperd256]

@@lewis123417 Well said

[@d2mik2]

@@cobbler9113 no, political ideas is not one of the things that are covered. It has be hostility or prejudice based on disablity, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

[@Dacheerio]

This is the first thing that Boris Johnsons government has done that I like. Im shocked 😂

[@finnspooner5509]

Same lol

[@Imperial_Squid]

While I am a lefty I will admit, a significant portion of my side took it way too far with the safe space stuff. It's good to have a space on campus where you can have that, no problem there. But the campus in general is not a safe space, you are here to learn and challenge ideas and debate and everything, the whole *point* is that if someone argues against you on a thing you should be able up defend your point! EDIT: this comment doesn't reflect on the bill in question, I've held this view for a long while

[@XMysticHerox]

The point of university is to learn and research. Not debate. Debate happens of course and that is good but every university has various forums and clubs for this where you can go wild. Just as it is important in academia to challenge existing ideas it is also important to reject ideas once they have been widely disproven. This bill prevents that. Now any old shit is protected.

[@Imperial_Squid]

@@XMysticHerox yes and no, I agree that debating and learning and researching are all different things (balancing contrasting ideas, absorbing a consensus truth and discovering new things respectively). All three of these should give space for someone to go "but why though?" so even if it's not a debate specifically, you should still be able to defend your point against questions, and I've seen safe space evangelism squashing that a couple of times (admittedly I'm in comp sci so I haven't seen what it's like over in the social studies building) Ajay just to be clear, my comment wasn't about the bill in specific, when I commented I was halfway through the video but they mentioned safe spaces so I wanted to comment on that

[@AmnesiaMau5]

i love having to debate bad faith agents, whataboutists, radical centrists for idk, just being alive i guess!

[@XMysticHerox]

@@Imperial_Squid Noone is preventing anyone from defending their points. If you release a paper on such an issue noone prevents you from doing so. Noone prevents you from releasing a book. Noone prevents you from writing articles. In regards to new ideas anyways. Do you think people should be able to proclaim the virtues of racialism? Flat Earth?

[@winged9247]

​@@XMysticHerox And who gets to decide what has been widely disproven? Regardless ideas like gender and racial equality were deemed 'widely disproven' historically, so popular opinion clearly doesn't guarantee truth and fact

[@ND_NB]

Can we just say that "canceling" somthing it what we used to call boycotting it... Which seems to be a pretty core part of freedoms and also to a well functioning capitalist society/economy...

[@Osindileyo1]

‘Hate speech’ is usually just opinions others don’t like. This is a good step forward to protecting the extremely necessary freedom of speech.

[@silenceiscompliance.]

I think this is very important, as open debate and freedom of speech is an essential part of democracy.

[@Coldheart322]

So is freedom from discrimination. However these two ideas conflict if you allow completely unregulated "free speech".

[@silenceiscompliance.]

@@Coldheart322 I think you're confusing "free speech" with "hate speech".

[@Coldheart322]

@@silenceiscompliance. That is kinda my point, people are willing to protect hate speech under the guise of free speech. Hate speech has no part in a democracy, but unless this law is very clear on what constitutes hate speech, it actually opens the way for hate to spread.

[@silenceiscompliance.]

@@Coldheart322 can you give me any examples of hate speech which has been protected under the guise of free speech?

[@silenceiscompliance.]

@@Coldheart322 what if the government surreptitiously diminished your rights and you were no longer given the opportunity to oppose that decision. You would call that a dictatorship right?

[@ryanbaisden6137]

I completely support this. I believe in very strong free speech, and having official regulation and law for requiring freedom of speech be protected in education, is very much positive for me.

[@readisgooddewaterkant7890]

What if that speach is harrasment?

[@SaintGerbilUK]

@@readisgooddewaterkant7890 then charge them with harassment, there are laws for that which this doesn't affect. Harassment has a specific meaning it's not just stuff you don't like.

[@Yaarmehearty]

If only "free speech" extended to the right to protest. The government is simply protecting the ability of those they are aligned with to have a platform in the face of a youth that is rejecting them.

[@UmbrellaGent]

@@readisgooddewaterkant7890 "Harassment" is a very vague idea and it should be dealt with on case to case basis, not through wide reaching, generalised legislation.

[@ryanbaisden6137]

@@readisgooddewaterkant7890 implement limits on communicating between the harasser and the harassed as well as limiting the physical proximity. The harasser can still say what they wish, but now cannot harass the harassed without violating non-freespeech issues.

[@britasha1194]

Woke is cringe, Bojo is cringe, Freespeech is important even if it "hurts my feelings" All sides are brainlet, politicians are clowns.

[@issysito320]

the only based comments

[@stephenpotts832]

The whole issue of trying to prevent someone from stating their opinion is obviously flawed. You don’t have to listen to their opinion if you believe that somehow this will cause you some irrevocable harm, but if you do listen and disagree, then you have the right of reply and counter argument. That is how societies evolve. The fact that the government need to bring new laws in ensure there is freedom of speech indicates there is a serious problem.

[@vezokpiraka]

That's not at all what freedom of expressions laws in the UK state. If someone somewhere hears your speech and they say it causes them great distress, then they can get that person arrested.

[@Sparhafoc]

>>"The fact that the government need to bring new laws in ensure there is freedom of speech indicates there is a serious problem." Or, the government really did not need to bring in any laws for this because it's not really a thing that occurs with any level of frequency, but certain sections of the electorate believe it based predominantly on their social media preferences.

[@Ziffwolf]

Where have people been prevented from stating an opinion?

[@HassanPoyo]

My university cancelled me for my conservative views. Almost lost my place in medical school and now I get very paranoid posting anything online. I support this law personally.

[@bzuidgeest]

Conservative or flat out wrong ideas? Not everybody that thinks he is cancelled is actually cancelled. This laws enables you to express your opinion. What it does not do is ensure a passing grade. That is still based on fact.

[@HassanPoyo]

@@bzuidgeest what do you mean by passing grade?

[@godlaydying]

I'm a little bit suspicious of giving a politician, or a civil servant ultimately answerable to a politician, the power to decide what counts as acceptable speech. The general idea that public institutions must protect free speech is a good one, but I can easily imagine cases where the government wants to be seen as tough on particular sets of ideas and so that speech isn't protected.

[@covfefe1787]

boo hoo Marxist viewpoints are already the majority in universities.

[@godlaydying]

@@covfefe1787 So your position is apparently that, if a given view is the majority, then the government is entitled to apply the law unevenly to the detriment of that view. Why?

[@FreaKCSGOHacker]

And this is "attacking universities"... how, exactly?

[@lximperium]

Yep! This protects the core purpose of universities

[@Garfie489]

It's a bill directed at Universities explicitly. Universities now may have significant issues such as extremism they can no longer address. Say a member of ISIS wants to talk to Muslims at the University - the University now needs to accommodate that and provide a safe space for that - which really shouldn't need explanation as to why that's a bad idea.

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Tldr are deleting comments, which are commenting on their biases.

[@ratvasin6249]

It's important for students to have freedom of speech, otherwise they will never be able to understand something that is not native to them; both educationally and socially.

[@DaDunge]

I have no desire to understand racists creationists and climate change deniers.

[@ratvasin6249]

@@DaDunge "Wow, I just got triggered when you said the word 'racist', now I'm going to report this and you might get into trouble." See what I did there, freedom of speech is a lot more than just spreading hate comments, it's about being able to express yourself. Also in a free nation, you don't have to listen or attend these events. That's your decision to make.

[@DaDunge]

@@ratvasin6249 Go ahead. But no one cares about triggering racists. At least no one except the tories.

[@ratvasin6249]

@@DaDunge lol 😆, that's what you understood from my comment, bravo 👏. But seriously, just because someone's idea doesn't match with your own point of view doesn't mean it's wrong or that they should not be allowed to express it. You just did it right now, calling Tories racist, without proof, that can be slander or offensive, but that is within your right with FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

[@DaDunge]

@@ratvasin6249 I'm not calling the tories racists (also not not calling them racist), I am saying they are intrested in getting the votes of racists by protecting thdir hate speech.

[@nish663]

Can't wait to see how this will be used when someone wants to speak on campus who wants sharia law...

[@lLaurnssl]

You'll be able to ridicule fanatics without fear of being disciplined for not respecting their beliefs. Fundamental freedoms that UK shamefully lost along the way... (But hopefully will regain in a very near future)

[@mikemartin6748]

Conservatives aren't afraid of pro-Sharia speech because they're confident that they can win that debate on an equal playing field. The only people who want constraints on free speech are people who have bad arguments

[@cobbler9113]

As they should be able to. It doesn’t mean others can’t challenge them though.

[@chheinrich8486]

@@lLaurnssl exactly, if its your opion you can say "thats carzy" and youd have the rigjt to say your opion

[@davec3974]

@@lLaurnssl indeed. Hopefully it will also help the fanatics acclimate to a culture where their beliefs are open to scrutiny and ridicule. Maybe they'll be a little less radical as a result.

[@osianlewis2463]

The whole debate on free speech in the West is so disingenuous. Almost no one believes in completely free speech: inciting violence is not condoned, nor is fundamentalist Islamism. These things are vigilantly monitored, curtailed and often criminalised. The so called free speech absolutists draw the freedom of speech line there. Younger generations want to draw the line in a place that defends the most oppressed minorities in the UK (e.g. trans people who are the people most likely to be murdered.) They're not freedom of speech absolutists- they're just creating a sophisticated legal framework to give transphobes and racists platforms without consequences. They don't like being told that people (young people, usually) don't want to listen to them.

[@jontalbot1]

You are far too rational for most of the bigots here

[@EvanOfTheDarkness]

Sooo, you're saying that racists and transphobes should not have a right to free speech? Only "normal" people, who think "normally", right? I think you can see the irony already.

[@Valyssi]

You have freedom of speech, you do not have the freedom to mandate that others respect your speech or platform your speech. To require as much would be to stifle other people's freedom of speech. This isn't a freedom of speech bill, it's an unpopular speech bill, mandating such speech be platformed

[@SaintGerbilUK]

‘IF LIBERTY MEANS ANYTHING AT ALL, IT MEANS THE RIGHT TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO HEAR’ - ALEXANDER BUTCHER Sorry for the caps

[@xfrassel4360]

well i agree, that you are can not be mandated to respect or adopt other peoples opinons, but here in Germany we just got a speech cancled (about the differences of gender and biological sex and why there are only two sexes) by a group of students, who threatened the speaker. University should be a place of discussion and plurality of opinions.

[@0chuklz0]

I never understood why people didn't want the crazy ones making their speeches out in the open instead of in the shadows. I would rather know who is standing behind the truly vile ideas and make sure they are comfortable saying it out in public.

[@AB-ee2rg]

Trump and his presidency are what happens when crazies are allowed to publicly air their opinions. The social atmosphere is shaped by what voices are given air time: give [climate deniers] a platform and it's more socially acceptable to [deny climate change]. Change the brackets to any issue we should consider resolved but some people disagree with the general consensus (eg. Holocaust denial, flat earth, vaccine skepticism, moon landing deniers etc etc)

[@0chuklz0]

@@AB-ee2rg I want all of them to stand out in public with their beliefs. First because that is the nature of Free Speech. Second because like the saying goes, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. Free Speech isn't just for people saying the things you agree with. Trump succeeded for a variety of other societal reasons.

[@gavinkemp7920]

Because history has shown that the crazy ones are able to rally enormous numbers of people to do very destructive things. Look at Hitler, Lenin, Pol pot or more recently Putin. The difference is they don't simply protest against an idea they don't like, they kill it.

[@Joker-yw9hl]

@@0chuklz0 100% agree. I get a little annoyed when people want to forbid people from speaking if they disagree with them. What kind of society is that?

[@willmako5009]

The thing is, people can force their agenda on you by having more money than you to push disinformation. If you're an oil company, and you have no law forbidding you from spreading climate change denialism, then you'll get what we have now, where they convinced millions of people that climate change wasn't real, thus endangering everyone. In any society where income inequality exists and allows powerful people to have more means to spread their ideas, free speech will be manipulated by the rich to satisfy their designs, at the expense of everyone else if need be.

[@TextbookBoxingGB]

As someone who graduated fairly recently, there is definitely a “your right to free speech isn’t more important than my right to feel safe” culture. There’s obviously a limit, you can’t go out preaching hate speech and all that, but given how closed off a lot of discourse at uni’s are, I think trying do something isn’t a bad idea. Whether this is the right way of going about it I don’t know

[@jontalbot1]

Question is does it merit scarce time and resources in Parliament? Would you not prefer them to be debating what us to be done about student debt and the funding crisis? I work in HE and my salary is worth 80% of what it was in 2008. And there are plenty worse off than me, often on temporary contracts with no security

[@sugoruyo]

It isn’t. It’s just another way to hand over power to the cabinet. If they set up an independent agency that used expert legal opinion as to whether something would fall under hate speech statutes it would be a good start.

[@XMysticHerox]

What about someone calmly explaining the virtues of racialism?

[@MsZeeZed]

Boris making sure anyone he’s made poor can only train as a mechanic or servant, something useful to him & his mates, would be a bugger if those people stood for parliament.

[@lewis123417]

Why should a mechanic or a servant on minimum wage subsidise someone's personal investment in their own future. If you want a high paying degree job in lesbian dance theory. Pay for it yourself

[@yt.personal.identification]

@@lewis123417 Sounds totally legit

[@Cunnysmythe]

This seems like a non sequitur

[@kanedNunable]

@@lewis123417 because having an educated society is beneficial. stops so many being fooled by propaganda to start.

[@tomdudley5314]

Having more mechanics and tradesman would be more beneficial than paper thin quatilty degrees that make you an 'informed' retail worker

[@j158]

Bring it to the usa

[@coconutcore]

I know people are going to have a whole idea of me built up by saying this controversial opinion, but…I get it. I’ve got complaints on all sides of the political spectrum, and silencing controversial opinions is a real problem, wether you agree with the opinion or not. It’s not helping anyone either, it just turns the silenced people into martyrs. If you shut every opinion you disagree with up, you’ll never actually know that you’re right and you won’t learn to think about how to argue against people of a differing opinion. That’s exactly what universities are for, to make people see as many sides of the world as possible. In stead of having discussions, we all just learn to shout without understanding, which makes the other shout harder. This is the problem, creating echo-chambers where all you see from the other side is the very most deplorable things some of them do and say on twitter. Universities are supposed to prevent that, however uncomfortable that is sometimes.

[@cdcdrr]

"Freedom of Speech Enforcement"? Policeman: Citizen, have you exercized your freedom of speech yet today? Student: Uh, I was just about to- Policeman: Refusing to utilize your freedom of speech is a misdemeanor! Let me see your Twitter page. Student: But I was only- Policeman: Your last message was telling ToryBlighter79 to "shut up". This is a felony level speech-crime, citizen! Student: He was an obvious troll! Policeman: And you have been jailed for previous offenses for "Reductio ad Hitlerum" arguements. What say you? Student: P-please! I-I don't want to go ba- Policeman: Sixty days gag order, and your Twitter has been suspended. Comply with Free Speech, or you have a duty to remain silent! Have a good day, citizen.

[@xerzy]

1984 is when I can't ask for genocide without any consequences so I end up with people angry at me, good thing the state will now take care of protecting those most vulnerable due their non-PC ideas instead of those pesky students…

[@TimothyBushell]

Funny. In respect to this law you'd also need the line: "Police: You did not retweet the Proud Boys today. Punishment - enforced retweeting of 50 white supremacists by the end of the day!"

[@Apostate_ofmind]

how did yall come to the conclusion that free speech is dystopic?! And good job completely misunderstanding how free speech works, or law for that matters. It doesnt impose what to say, it imposes sanctions for you stopping other people from speaking.

[@TimothyBushell]

@@Apostate_ofmind To some of us, this isn't a free speech issue. This is a culture war dog whistle. Free speech is being allowed to speak freely in public. This isn't about that. This is about reducing the rights of university leaders to decide who is and isn't platformed on their premises. The fact that the government has to create a new law to enforce that shows that it IS currently lawful for heads of university to prevent people from speaking who they don't think are appropriate. I believe that universities are the best people to decide which people are appropriate for the education of their students, not the state. This isn't about free speech. This is about who gets to decide where and when speech can be given in a limited public forum. For instance, you can go into any British town center, on public property, and exercise your free speech. But you can't just walk into a university and stand up in a lecture hall and speak to the students there. You know this. You accept that the university has a right to prevent just anybody walking in and speaking. What they are trying to do with this law is make it much easier for someone to do just that - invited perhaps by just a handful of students - allow a white supremacist or holocaust denier to enter university property and speak to students in a lecture hall there - as if legitimatized by that institution. I think you're the one confused about what this new law will do, not us. This isn't a free speech law. We already have free speech.

[@Apostate_ofmind]

@@TimothyBushell you dont seem to know how these things work. You dont just stoll into a university and take a chair and start to yell from it. You get invited to speak, and then people start to complain to the university, that INVITED YOU, that you shouldnt be there. without this law, the students decide who gets to make lectures, not the university. Thats exactly what happened in the past that provoked this law: People invited to speak, complaints, and the invite gets revoked (why was it made in the first place if the people invited were so 'wrong for the teaching'?). Not even to mention that bad ideas SHOULD have a platform. Thats how you show they are unfounded and ridiculous. Thats how it always was, thats how even the gay rights campain operated, but now, you want people to just shut up? Who decides whats its 'taboo', you? The left? The right? The leftist university? The government? Lately universities have become such echo chambers its terrifying. Its obvious you havent been on the ground in a while, people literally cannot speak their mind because they fear expulsion. EXPULSION! How is that ground for betterment of ideas?

[@Jacehdr19449]

I think it is kind of ironic that a new free speech bill is being passed while still upholding hate speech laws

[@Cunnysmythe]

And passing more

[@TheSandkastenverbot]

As a German I can confidently say that hate speech laws make a lot of sense

[@WoollyMittens]

Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.

[@NeuroScientician]

The entirety of 'woke culture' is the physical manifestation of intolerance.

[@Cunnysmythe]

Herbert?

[@SigmaOfMyParts]

sounds more like a licence to trashtalk and sue a institut if they do not want to provide a platform for this.

[@PhillipHilton]

Just wait for the book burning...

[@kurtoogle4576]

Sounds potentially disastrously legally expensive for student unions and universities.

[@SaintGerbilUK]

Good they should not be stifling free speech.

[@MSNL123]

@@SaintGerbilUK i'd guess he is talking about the fact this puts Unis and Student Unions between a rock and a hard place, as they can be fined for not stopping hate speech, and also for suppressing free speech.

[@DreZato12]

in reality uni's just won't invite anyone controversial to speak at all. if you were never a guest you can't be snubbed thus no lawsuit

[@firebyrd437]

@@MSNL123 doubled edged sword comes to mind

[@Philiptanzer]

@@MSNL123 What law requires you to stop other people's hate speech?

[@iffy_too4289]

From what i can tell this bill will actually empower everyone. As long as hate speech, harassment, bullying, discrimination etc is accounted for in law then i would say this is good. However if people have free speech defined in law then they should also have full rights of protest too. The govt shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

[@HG_1879]

I agree, finally people can speak with a protection despite a controversial view. JK Rowling will no longer be cancelled for saying only real women should use women’s loos.

[@vezokpiraka]

But the UK does not have freedom of speech. It actually has some of the most restrictive laws on what you can do or express yourself in the entire world, barring places like North Korea or China. The whole idea is absurd and is just another tool to control Universities because they produce smart people and they don't really want that in the UK.

[@bzuidgeest]

@@HG_1879 excellent example.

[@theMoporter]

The entire problem is that speakers were turned down by unis and student unions for hate speech, so no.

[@theMoporter]

@@HG_1879 Unless you're planning to force the whole country to be nice to Mrs Rowling, no, people will continue to call her a loser. Freedom of expression means the freedom to call a billionaire who spends her time getting offended by people using the toilet a right wee dafty.

[@josephrion3514]

You,can't incite panic no calling bombs or fires you will be fined for such lies. You can't necessarily get away with harassing people without consequences. You can critique the government and assemble to discuss such opinions. The freedom of speech is a tricky set of laws that protects some things and not the things you might think it does.

[@LillyP-xs5qe]

Plus there's hate speech, you can't let people like the KKK or EDL have freedom of speech cause they restrict the freedom of others

[@tomlxyz]

It's not that tricky. You can speak your opinion or tell your ideas but you can't make threats, tell things you know are lies, tell people to do stuff, etc. It's basically just talking your opinion and ideas. I don't know why it's called "freedom of speech" in English because it's quite misleading and often misunderstood because of that. The German word literally translates to "freedom of opinion" which is less misleading

[@josephrion3514]

@@tomlxyz agreed. I think legal eagle once put it very well what it's there to protect or who it's there to actually keep in check.

[@Kaiodenic]

@@tomlxyz That's a good one, we should adopt that phrasing to curb both fear of it and misuse of it.

[@baileygregory9192]

@@josephrion3514legal Eagle is American and knows American law unlike in the UK the US has legal protections for speech. In the UK free speech is also prohibited if it causes offence

[@grahamturner1290]

A total waste of time and taxpayers' money. 🙄

[@gregoryhunter7413]

You broke it down well thank you!