Is people's right to be offended killing free speech?

steddyeddy

Universities 'are killing free speech', says group of leading academics. Some academics believe that the free speech is being impeded for both students and academics and is being trumped by people's "right" not to be offended. I personally think that sometimes the power of offense has gone to far. Events last year where Tim Hunt who helped us understand how the cell itself divides was forced to resign over someone being offended and the scientist who landed a rocket on a comet was forced to make an apology on TV over wearing a comic book t-shirt. These people were perceived as having different views (both wrongly perceived) and were both fired.

Are we at stage where we just shout down opposing views and get rid of the person holding them? Is the art of debate dead or do we just block out opposing views? A teacher I had was fond of saying people from a certain area hadn't got the aptitude for college. Obviously he was proved wrong and that's the point. People and their views have no power over you. If you feel offended just remember it's an opinion that can be challenged and not a fact. I think we're going in dangerous directions by being too PC.

Universities are "killing free speech" by banning anything that causes offence, a group of leading academics have warned.
Students are being denied the opportunity to debate opposing views due to political correctness and censorship, the group argued in a letter published in The Telegraph.
Academics led by Frank Furedi, a professor at the University of Canterbury, said universities see students as customers and do not dare to stand against them.



The letter argued universities are curtailing freedom of speech “like never before” and also concluded that “students who are offended by opposing views are perhaps not yet ready to be at university”.
The group have called on vice-chancellors to promote freedom of speech and battle against censorship.
The statement comes after a campaign at an Oriel College at Oxford University to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes, an alumnus and benefactor, because he is regarded as being the founding father of apartheid in South Africa.

Fleawuss

I fully support your right to free speech......in Politics Cafe!

mynamejeff

Fleawuss wrote: »

I fully support your right to free speech......in Politics Cafe!

O the irony !!

W1zardst

Muslims.

silverharp

your right to free speech used to end at my face, now its my safe space and if that happens to be planet wide tough tits! :pac:

RustyNut

Fleawuss wrote: »

I fully support your right to free speech......in Politics Cafe!

I find your lack of support for free speech in AH to be offensive.

Turtwig

Society will always have a tendency towards echo chambers and peer censoring on unwanted opinions. I think we're not that bad though. Double standards are our biggest problem right now. Some groups are more protected and more influential at getting protection than others. That is somewhat worrying. It's a viable tactic nowadays to paint all holders of a certain spectrum of opinions with the same extreme brush rather than actually discuss the nuance of the points being made.

Fleawuss

RustyNut wrote: »

I find your lack of support for free speech in AH to be offensive.

I am outraged by your taking offense. I intend to remain outraged for several nanoseconds.

Mourinho

I've read about this before where students want novels banned because they simply mention slavery, have sexist language etc

The ironic thing being these types getting offended and wanting this and that banned are the same ones that cry and scream about right wing parties/anyone the mentions immigration control/insert many other issues here as being racist, intolerant, Nazis, fascists, etc

There actions are nothing but fascism under a different flag pure and simple, they have just deluded themselves into thinking they are right and must enforce these views on everyone else.

The Backwards Man

Is it a coincidence that the amount of people who continually whinge and moan about their lack of free speech is roughly the same as the amount of people who would be much better off keeping their opinions to themselves?

MRnotlob606

free peach

For Forks Sake

Fleawuss wrote: »

I am outraged by your taking offense. I intend to remain outraged for several nanoseconds.

You should then start a change.org petition, that'll change the system man.

Custardpi

These academics are obviously all white cis males with an imperialist hetero-normative agenda. They should check their privilege & educate themselves on the psychic pain their hateful harrassment campaign will no doubt cause anyone who disagrees with them. Obviously their universities should also fire them & compensate any student (or indeed anyone else) affected by their bigotry.

dirtyden

Someone landed a comet on the moon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How did this slip by me last year?

I actually don't believe in free speech either. I don't think people should be allowed freely incite hatred or insult or intimidate others without consequence.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

DuMorph

MRnotlob606 wrote: »

free peach

Freeze Beach!

MRnotlob606

Mark Hamil is still on Skellig Michael. We need to get him the **** off there quickly or he will b eaten by puffins,

4zn76tysfajdxp

Mourinho wrote: »

I've read about this before where students want novels banned because they simply mention slavery, have sexist language etc

Heh. They just don't get it.

Aineoil

Steddyeddy, you pose a very interesting question on the issue of free speech.

I don't think I get offended easily...but...

I have worked worked in various workplaces where people who have the most opinions speak the loudest and freeze out people who don't agree with them.

My free speech doesn't even get a voice.

The_Valeyard

Bill Maher had a good speech about this recently.

Captain Slow IRL

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that the amount of people who continually whinge and moan about their lack of free speech is roughly the same as the amount of people who would be much better off keeping their opinions to themselves?

It's like pro-lifers; they're among the ones that should have been aborted.

Custardpi

Captain Slow IRL wrote: »

It's like pro-lifers; they're among the ones that should have been aborted.

Exactly. It's completely unacceptable that people who disagree with you are allowed to exist.

sunshine and showers

You don't have a right to free speech in Ireland. You've seen too many American TV shows.

RustyNut

dirtyden wrote: »

Someone landed a comet on the moon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How did this slip by me last year?

I actually don't believe in free speech either. I don't think people should be allowed freely incite hatred or insult or intimidate others without consequence.

Maby my sarcasm detector is not working but do you really think that insulting people should be banned?

There goes my fun when the politicians come calling.

Canadel

steddyeddy wrote: »

Events last year where Tim Hunt who helped us understand how the cell itself divides was forced to resign over someone being offended and the scientist who landed a rocket on a comet was forced to make an apology on TV over wearing a comic book t-shirt. These people were perceived as having different views (both wrongly perceived) and were both fired.

Exactly. The public didn't fire them, their employers did. People have a right to say what they want like the two scientists you mention, and others have a right to be offended by what they say and to express that offence. That's how free speech works. Sometimes, like life, it's not fair.

There's no easy answer to this question. What people find offensive varies wildly among different demographics and social classes.

Unlimited free speech sounds wonderful in theory but it's a pipe dream because, sadly, there are too many violent and/or idiotic bigoted people in the world whose existence necessitates laws against incitement to hatred.

I don't agree with shutting down speakers whose views may be controversial, provided that they're not actually inciting violent hatred against someone (Germaine Greer comes to mind here; she may talk a lot of shíte but I highly doubt she actually wants transgender people to be killed or anything); it's better to challenge those types of people and defeat them with sensible, rational arguments.

But not everyone is willing to listen to reason or debate, sadly. There are hate groups out there (and, taking the US as an example, plenty of them) and hateful, violent ideologies (either far-left or far-right), and because of that it makes sense to me that there has to be some sort of measures in place to curb the most oppressive and dangerous ideologies from reaching a large audience. Nobody should be forced to entertain extremist groups because "waah waaah free speech waaah".

dirtyden

RustyNut wrote: »

Maby my sarcasm detector is not working but do you really think that insulting people should be banned?

There goes my fun when the politicians come calling.

It depends on the context and the impact and what has been said. But things like verbal bullying should not be tolerated yes. Slagging etc is fine but there is a line that can be crossed where slagging can become more sinister.

Perhaps the wording of my previous post was not fantastic, obviously a simple insult is generally a minor thing.

silverharp

Canadel wrote: »

Exactly. The public didn't fire them, their employers did. People have a right to say what they want like the two scientists you mention, and others have a right to be offended by what they say and to express that offence. That's how free speech works. Sometimes, like life, it's not fair.

if a guy who managed to "land a comet on the moon" can get fired because of a tumblr mob not liking his shirt, we are in PC hell, its means self censorship to the point that some well known academics have moved to Japan do be done with it. its the tyranny of the mentally damaged

Custardpi

sunshine and showers wrote: »

You don't have a right to free speech in Ireland. You've seen too many American TV shows.

Generally when people argue in favour of "free speech" they are speaking of the general principle involved, not stating a particular legal standpoint, though obviously in some jurisdictions the legal system will be more favourable to the free expression of ideas than others. To use an analogy, if I say I'm in favour of people being allowed to smoke marijuana (subject to regulation, driving restrictions etc) that doesn't mean I'm stating that it's currently legal in Ireland to do so.

Canadel

silverharp wrote: »

if a guy who managed to "land a comet on the moon" can get fired because of a tumblr mob not liking his shirt, we are in PC hell, its means self censorship to the point that some well known academics have moved to Japan do be done with it. its the tyranny of the mentally damaged

If an employer deems it necessary to fire an employee because of a tumblr mob not liking his shirt, we are in employment hell. Also, the right of that mob to express their views is as important as landing a comet on the moon.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Mourinho wrote: »

I've read about this before where students want novels banned because they simply mention slavery, have sexist language etc

The ironic thing being these types getting offended and wanting this and that banned are the same ones that cry and scream about right wing parties/anyone the mentions immigration control/insert many other issues here as being racist, intolerant, Nazis, fascists, etc

There actions are nothing but fascism under a different flag pure and simple, they have just deluded themselves into thinking they are right and must enforce these views on everyone else.

Are they though? Or are you just making an assumption?

I'm two ways about the question in the OP.

Free speech is incredibly important, just don't he a twit about it. At the same time, people can be incredibly sensitive regarding certain topics.

Custardpi

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Free speech is incredibly important, just don't he a twit about it. A

The question is, how does one reach an agreed position on what "being a twit" is in this context? How should such an anti-twit stance be enforced? I don't think either question has a simple answer.

Canadel

Custardpi wrote: »

The question is, how does one reach an agreed position on what "being a twit" is in this context? How should such an anti-twit stance be enforced? I don't think either question has a simple answer.

Hint: Don't enforce it.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Custardpi wrote: »

The question is, how does one reach an agreed position on what "being a twit" is in this context? How should such an anti-twit stance be enforced? I don't think either question has a simple answer.

Yea for sure, as everybody is different. Some are easily offended, others are not. I guess what I was getting at is ridiculing somebody. Nobody should be free to ridicule people.

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

RayM

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Is it a coincidence that the amount of people who continually whinge and moan about their lack of free speech is roughly the same as the amount of people who would be much better off keeping their opinions to themselves?

The kind of right-wing dullards whose interest in 'free speech' begins and ends with the 'right' of the excessively privileged to punch downward. My heart bleeds for them.

Custardpi

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Yea for sure, as everybody is different. Some are easily offended, others are not. I guess what I was getting at is ridiculing somebody. Nobody should be free to ridicule people.

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

So you'd be in favour of banning most political satire then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mansize

jacksie66 wrote: »

While I do not agree with what you say I will fight to the death your right to say it..

would you really though?

Canadel

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

The difference being talking as opposed to drawing.

RustyNut

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Yea for sure, as everybody is different. Some are easily offended, others are not. I guess what I was getting at is ridiculing somebody. Nobody should be free to ridicule people.

There's a difference between saying "there's no god" and drawing a religious figurehead in an offensive way (performing fellatio).

I can hear my wise old granny (Rip) saying. Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Custardpi wrote: »

So you'd be in favour of banning most political satire then?

Lets get the personal opinions out of the way, as if it were important I am not in favour of banning anyting which would infringe on freedom of speech.

I think that my post may be misinterpreted. It's a difficult one to argue, that's for sure. I just don't see the point in maliciously attacking somebody or group of people by knowingly saying, printing or drawing something offensive in order to get a reaction. It's also not a justification for the reaction, whatever that may be.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Canadel wrote: »

The difference being talking as opposed to drawing.

There's a difference in the media, and in this case the message, but if the message is the same, should the method of communication matter?

ush

Frank Furedi, the academic leading this campaign, is a crank. You can discuss whether removing a statue of Rhodes is reasonable, but Furedi is not the voice of reason here either.

steddyeddy

Canadel wrote: »

Exactly. The public didn't fire them, their employers did. People have a right to say what they want like the two scientists you mention, and others have a right to be offended by what they say and to express that offence. That's how free speech works. Sometimes, like life, it's not fair.

Actually the latter wasn't fired but both were chastised for their speech or actions by the public. Tim Hunt's forced resignation was called "trial by public".

Some idiots wrongfully thought that the scientists did wrong and made a noise until there action. Senior academics are claiming the same.

Canadel

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

There's a difference in the media, and in this case the message, but if the message is the same, should the method of communication matter?

Of course not. And neither message should be in any way suppressed by the state in a country that calls itself even somewhat progressive.

xband

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Especially since we got rid of that pesky ozone layer. Good dose of pure UV will kill anything!

Canadel

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually the latter wasn't fired but both were chastised for their speech or actions by the public. Tim Hunt's forced resignation was called "trial by public".

Some idiots wrongfully thought that the scientists did wrong and made a noise until there action. Senior academics are claiming the same.

Ah, from your post it implied that both of them were fired. In that case then I retract my previous comment about him, he's not stupid, he's simply a coward.

Custardpi

Melanie Repulsive Sortie wrote: »

Lets get the personal opinions out of the way, as if it were important I am not in favour of banning anyting which would infringe on freedom of speech.

I think that my post may be misinterpreted. It's a difficult one to argue, that's for sure. I just don't see the point in maliciously attacking somebody or group of people by knowingly saying, printing or drawing something offensive in order to get a reaction. It's also not a justification for the reaction, whatever that may be.

Which essentially equates (even if that's not the intention) to a desire to wrap people in cotton wool in an attempt to protect them from ideas/statements they disagree with. Even if you personally don't see a "point" in a particular book/article/cartoon/film being produced because some may choose to be offended by its content that's not a good enough reason for it not to be. For me, so long as you don't openly threaten or force your ideas on someone or an identifiable group of people you should be free to say whatever you like. If your ideas/beliefs are wrong they can be challenged by others with more knowledge of the subject. Now obviously that's not the current legal position in Ireland, nor would it be one endorsed by many sites, including Boards.

steddyeddy

Canadel wrote: »

Ah, from your post it implied that both of them were fired. In that case then I retract my previous comment about him, he's not stupid, he's simply a coward.

Well you can bet the apology was forced on him. Not as much a coward as the hack who found his shirt offensive and launched a hate campaign against him. Idiots who never made it as a scientist getting jealous.

Dirty Dingus McGee

As long as you'r not inciting people to kill others you can pretty much say whatever the hell you like about anyone or anything (as long as it isn't spreading lies which I assume is covered by libel/slander laws) .People can hold whatever ridiculous opinions they want and be allowed to express them.

I've honestly never been offended by one thing I've read or heard.I might have strongly disagreed with it but I've never been offended. I think some people think disagreeing with something is equivalent to being offended.

xband

On a more serious note though, free speech (including in the US) is limited to 'within the law'.

Try using foul language on US network television and you'll find out how far American free speech goes.
There has been plenty of censorship over there over the years.

Libel law exists there too, it's just that the bar is somewhat higher, especially since supreme court cases in the 1960s.

Ireland's has freedom of speech, also with limitations. Libel law and a constitutional right to freedom of speech that's VERY far from absolute and could be abused quite easily:

"6 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –
i The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.
"

We could do with something along the lines of the 1st Amendment. Although it would be at least the 36th Amendment here, not quite as sexy.