DickSwiveller wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irving-speech-to-college-society-cancelled-1.901075 "Ross Frenett, auditor of the society, blamed the cancellation on violent threats by individuals along with a campaign of intimidation against society members." Ye, nothing.
Brian? wrote: » That’s clearly something, which was what I wanted. This thread wasn’t very clear on specifics.
DickSwiveller wrote: » Also, the question you are asking is really the wrong one. The question you should be asking is how many speakers have not been invited in the first place due to opposition from students. When I was in University I suggested inviting John Waters for a debate on religion, and a few rad fems screamed me down and said he was 'divisive' and 'hateful'. This is the real problem which the public don't see. A lot of students are hesitant to invite even a mildly controversial speaker because of the inevitable backlash from a small number of fanatics.
Brian? wrote: » That’s shocking behaviour. Really disgraceful. As I said earlier in the thread, I believe everyone should be given a platform to speak. However, the thrust of the OP is that it was the institutions themselves that are denying free speech. This isn’t the case in any of the examples above. It was students who objected in 2 of the cases.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I think that this is the logical consequence of making education into a commodity. Students forking over many thousands per year now feel sufficiently empowered to have a say in how Universities are run in much the same manner as a guest at a 5-star hotel.
Eric Cartman wrote: » http://www.universitytimes.ie/2011/10/phil-statement-regarding-cancelation-of-immigration-debate/ Another
Professor Moriarty wrote: » 2011? Seriously? Anyway, it's a pity you didn't bother reading the article. From your link:Though the Council in many ways are ideologically opposite to Mr Griffin, we recognise that a true debate does not carry with it an assumption of moral righteousness for any side or submission; and that the spirit of free speech and oratory is best protected by those who would allow their moral nemesis to present a case – even if only to test our personal consideration of what is right and wrong. As a liberal society in a liberal institution, we feel that Mr Griffin’s right to speak on immigration should be protected. Despite this, The Phil have been put in a position whereby to proceed with the debate would be to risk the safety of our members. After the submission of serious security concerns by college authorities, the Gardai and other members of the student body – we feel we have no other responsible choice in this matter than to cancel the debate.
DickSwiveller wrote: » "Despite this, The Phil have been put in a position whereby to proceed with the debate would be to risk the safety of our members. After the submission of serious security concerns by college authorities, the Gardai and other members of the student body – we feel we have no other responsible choice in this matter than to cancel the debate" Did you miss this part?
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Point?
DickSwiveller wrote: » What's your point? The bit you quoted shows clearly that it had to be cancelled due to pressure from students.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Oh! And there was me thinking it was serious security concerns expressed by college authorities, Gardaí and some students. I wonder what this line means so? "After the submission of serious security concerns by college authorities, the Gardai and other members of the student body."
DickSwiveller wrote: » Ye, it definitely had nothing to with student pressure. Absolutely nothing. Wait...What's this. From Trinity News, 2016: "One autumn as I began my third year in Trinity I learned that the Phil had invited Nick Griffin, the British National Party leader, to propose the motion that “immigration has gone too far.” I was one of the many students and political activists who decided to pressure the Phil into cancelling the invitation. I’m proud to say we succeeded, but at the time I argued that there had to be a large anti-racist, anti-fascist demonstration on the night of the debate. This would send a clear message that Griffin was not welcome and, if possible and if numbers were big enough, prevent him from speaking."
DickSwiveller wrote: » Well said. Far too many people who shouldn't be attending University treat the experience as a social club and aren't really interested in the academic side. These people invariably study sociology, politics etc. From my experience, the more open and independent minded students are found in the more difficult subjects - maths, physics, cognitive science etc.
Mutant z wrote: » Be that as it may its up to the universaties to uphold free speech and overule those students and they are failing to do so they have allowed it to turn into an anti freespeech soapbox for thin skinned students who cant handle opinions different to their own.
Professor Moriarty wrote: » Yes what is it? One person posts an article five years after the event claiming to be hero? So what? In fact, if you look at the original article, it states categorically that the only militancy was "a confrontational sit-in" by "non-students". Let's be clear here. In a college of 18000 students, you will naturally have a cohort who will object to a far right fascist having the opportunity to spread their hate. A small minority of that cohort will be militant. That doesn't mean that the vast majority of students don't support the right to free speech. You're trying to build an argument from nothing.
DickSwiveller wrote: » If you read my previous comments I specifically say that it is a vocal minority. I agree with you that most students don't behave in this way.
DickSwiveller wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/irving-speech-to-college-society-cancelled-1.901075 "Ross Frenett, auditor of the society, blamed the cancellation on violent threats by individuals along with a campaign of intimidation against society members."
DickSwiveller wrote: » https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/activist-pulls-out-of-trinity-college-talk-due-to-restrictions-aimed-at-not-antagonising-muslims-31087977.html And another.
Brian? wrote: » That’s shocking behaviour. Really disgraceful. As I said earlier in the thread, I believe everyone should be given a platform to speak.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I absolutely disagree. John Waters has done nothing his entire life except stand on platforms and lecture people about his masculinist traditional baloney. He's the last person on Earth who needs to be given a platform to blather at students.
DickSwiveller wrote: » Are you such a wimp that you can't confront ideas you disagree with? Where do we draw the line when it comes to no-platforming people? Is it anyone who dares disagree with you?
Pepefrogok wrote: » They just don't get it, their belief of their own self importance blinded them. Look at what happened when Nick Griffin was afforded TV time, his ideas were exposed and laid bare, he lost massive support, his hype train that was speeding along at the time derailed, if he was instead no platformed as many wanted he would have been martyred and the BNP would have had a few seats in parliament. If you believe someone's ideas are repugnant and false best have them debated, not hidden underground where their ideas go unchallenged, unless of course you believe their ideas might actually be well received by people but just go against your agenda.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » This is John Waters we are talking about. I've been seeing his byline plastered all over the media for 20 years! Oh, let's have him in to repeat himself yet again to an audience that cannot stand him! Edgy and provocative! No - tedious and repetitive.
DickSwiveller wrote: » This is all ad hominum abuse and has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » On the contrary - you are complaining that students objected to having John Waters speak, and are supposing that this is because they are too wimpy to listen to an opposing view. But John Waters is not an edgy voice from the wilderness challenging orthodoxy - he is a man who has scarcely left his platform or put down his bullhorn in 20 years. Everyone is sick to the back teeth of listening to him. Since his views are extremely well known, I would expect any student body to say "Christ, No!" if he was invited to speak.
