Issues with the Freedom of Speech

Free speech is rapidly becoming an issue in universities across the country. And Edinburgh University has recently been labelled one of Britain’s worst for censorship. Edinburgh Student’s Association (EUSA) has banned newspapers, ‘offensive’ Halloween costumes, ‘lad banter’ and has a strict ‘safe space’ policy which prohibits the use of ‘discriminatory’ language or actions. This includes things like ‘intimidating’ gestures – one Edinburgh student was accused of violating the rules for raising her hand and shaking her head ‘aggressively’ during a meeting about boycotts.

Safe space for students is also one of the reasons given for no-platforming speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos. Conservative writer Ann Coulter has had trouble at American universities, invited by some students but shut down by others who disagree with her. Germaine Greer was no-platformed at Cardiff because of her supposedly transphobic ideas. George Galloway was similarly no-platformed by the NUS for alleged sexism.

The issue of free speech divides people. There’s the infamous case of Wilfred Laurier University in Canada where staff pulled a student in for a harrowing interrogation for showing a TV clip of Professor Jordan Peterson to prompt discussion during a meeting. (Peterson got embroiled in a media firestorm after standing up against a Canadian law which forces people to use transgender pronouns.) The university claimed just showing the video for a discussion created a toxic environment for transgender students. The university achieved worldwide condemnation because of their treatment of the student.

It’s not just staff enforcing these new rules. Students at UCLA Berkeley California invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak, and it resulted in a brawl when Antifa and other groups tore up the campus and beat people up. The excuse was, as it always is, that ‘fascist’ views are unacceptable, which presupposes that anyone accused is guilty – a bit like the witch trials. And no-one wants even a false accusation of transphobia or racism hanging about them, because it could resurface when they’re trying to get work, or when putting their name into Google. It’s the nature of the age we live in.

Listen to the Jonathan Pie viral video on the Trump victory to see his take-down of the left’s tactical smearing of opponents as bigots, racists, fascists, and his argument that silencing people isn’t the way forward.

There has been a push for some time to remove certain topics from conversation. Infamously Enoch Powell brought up immigration and it wrecked his career. He was no-platformed by students as well. Turns out immigration was one issue you weren’t allowed to discuss. Politicians are still scared to speak about it, in case they get the same treatment.

Ann Cryer of the Labour Party found similar difficulties when she tried to raise awareness of the rape gangs in her constituency. The police and social work had been covering up the activities of the gangs because the men were of Pakistani origin and their victims were white children. The police and social work seemed terrified of being called racist, and so the crimes continued under the shelter of the authorities.

Yet after terrorist attacks the police regularly tweet out warnings to the public that they’ll come after them if anything they say is ‘deemed offensive’ – prioritising perceived ‘hate speech’ over actual crimes. In the police handbook it emphasises that ‘perception of hate’ is the top priority – not facts. Therefore people can be harassed by the state for something that didn’t actually happen, and the fact that it didn’t happen can be ignored. It’s the morality of the gulag.

A lot of people think offensive things should be banned, but who gets to decide what’s offensive? If it’s on a political subject (such as the transgender pronouns in Canada) then isn’t it just the misuse of power to silence an opposing argument? And jokes, particularly crude ones or cruel ones can have consequences – just ask ‘Nazi pug guy’ who has been persecuted by the police for his tasteless joke on his girlfriend.

University faculties can be similarly inclined – marking down students for having the wrong opinion on politics, religion or gender, or for submitting work that isn’t ideologically ‘correct’.

But it goes further than universities and the police. Recently Twitter employees were caught on tape saying they shadowban Trump supporters, people who talk about God, people who support the right to guns in America, and others deemed ‘right-wing’. You could argue Twitter as a private company can do what they want, but shouldn’t they be honest about the fact they ban certain opinions? Facebook and Youtube engage in a similar kind of censorship.

So why is free speech important? Should people be able to speak their mind without fear? Should the police have powers to arrest people and ruin their lives and job prospects based on a ‘perception’ an officer somewhere has had? There is an argument that freedom of speech is necessary for a democracy. If you can’t talk, discuss and debate openly then violence is more likely to develop between opposing sides. Explanation and facts are generally better ways to solve differences. And how can people make up their minds on issues if they don’t hear different sides?

There are limits to free speech – credible threats of violence, slander, etc. But is Edinburgh University, and other British universities, doing their students and society a disservice? Alan Findlay, Chair of the Scottish Libertarian Party thinks so, he said: “quashing free speech and open debate insults the intelligence of the students… The Scottish Libertarian Party would like to see an end to university ‘no-platform’ policies [which] serve only to infantilise the students.”

Douglas Murray, Spectator editor and author of ‘The Strange Death of Europe’, is worried that free speech is a lost cause in the UK, and says “hate speech is the new ‘shut-up'”. Murray thinks the pursuit of truth is impossible without free speech, and says in a pluralistic society some people have come to the conclusion that the only way for it to work is to shut down all debate, but the opposite – the inclusion of lots of different voices – is the real way forward. He says: “It’s a pressure cooker we’re building up – because if you don’t let people speak then the only resort is to punch people. you can’t put a lid on opinion without it blowing out somewhere.”

Perhaps a time will come soon when students turn to those no-platforming their guests and defend their own rights to hear them. Interestingly both Milo and Peterson were proposed for Glasgow university rector last year. They didn’t win but it’s clear that some students want free speech on the agenda.