FREEDOM OF SPEECH vs 'NO-PLATFORMING'

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by RJM Corbet, Jun 12, 2020.

  1. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    "I completely disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it," is a quotation from Evelyn Beatrice Hall, later credited to Voltaire, and later yet to Winston Churchill.

    Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park in London used to feature soapbox orators talking about anything and everything. No-one was forced to listen.

    Free speech obviously needs SOME sorts of limits, but what are they? There are national laws against sedition, encitement to violence, slander, etc.

    But is a person entitled to spread plain lies on the internet? Or on a College platform? The former is a bit like Speakers' Corner -- it is a public area. The university stage is a private space, whose representative Students' Council is entitled to 'reserve right of admission'.

    So what are the limits set by a university college about who may be allowed a platform there?

    Time is limited, so perhaps flat earthers and other proponents of generally kooky and disproved theories are agreed to just be wasting everybody's.

    But at what point does the university have to decide that a speaker's views are 'unacceptable' to it's own ethos, and that students should be protected from hearing them?

    For example should a university allow pro-Palestinian but prevent pro-Israel speakers? This is just one common instance of no-platforming.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2020
  2. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    I feel that the reasoning between allowing a platform or not is far more relevant to me then strictly adhering to a checklist.

    The reasoning is far more revealing of an institutions values and can be more open to critism and dialog.
     
  3. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Yes but if a higher education institution is limiting its students to hearing only one side of the story, is that fair to them?
     
  4. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    My opinion is that universities are driven by the far-left ideology and other opinions are bullied and excluded? The 'correct' mindset is required?
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2020
  5. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Fortunately young people work with fresh, active minds, and certainly do arrive at their own judgement, mostly -- but imo this in spite of, not due to, university 'conditioning' towards conformity of viewpoint.
     
  6. Namaste Jesus

    Namaste Jesus Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    3,317
    Likes Received:
    788
    That same sentiment is often uttered here in the US, but here of late, oh btw you're fired, usually follows. Especially if you've voiced an unpopular opinion on social media.
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  7. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    WOKE thought police nazis
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2020
  8. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ually-assaulted-20s-hits-transphobia-row.html

    " ... the on-going row about her (JK Rowling) recent comments over transgender people.

    The author, 54, was hit by what she described as 'relentless attacks' after she took issue with an online article 'people who menstruate'.

    She tweeted to her 14.5m followers on Saturday: 'I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?'

    Her remarks also led to a backlash from stars including Daniel Radcliffe, who played Harry Potter in the film franchise of the series, and Eddie Redmayne, who stars in Ms Rowling's Fantastic Beasts films.

    Emma Watson, who played Hermione in the Harry Potter films, also criticised Ms Rowling in a series of tweets on Wednesday ..."

    And Megan Markle's pal Jessica Mulroney has just been fired from her TV job for not posting a black square on Black Tuesday.

    https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20200613/281715501857225
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2020
  9. Contrarian Deist

    Contrarian Deist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2020
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    20
    The only reasonable limits on speech/expression are the codes of conduct/honor and laws we have devised for valid reasons against direct threats, slander/defamation/libel against individuals and false accusations against individuals(at least ones that have serious legal, social status or economic status...such as job loss/income loss and having to unnecessarily look over ones shoulders all the time due to vicious gossip related to false accusations of a serious moral or legal nature) and noise laws.

    Everything else is or should be a free market of ideas and absolute freedom of speech/expression.

    That quote you made from Evelyn Beatrice Hall is pertinent to this discussion, as are the following,
    *either you support it(freedom of speech) for views(and people) you find abhorrent or you prefer fascist/communist standards*- Noam Chomsky ( slightly paraphrased it I think as I can't recall it exactly off the top of my head right now, but this is very close to the quote if not spot on).

    My fave since it comes from my personal hero Thomas Paine-
    *You will do me the justice to remember that I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.
    The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is Reason. I have never used any other and I trust I never shall*

    And the late great contrarian Christopher Hitchens had some poignant, brilliant, well worded things to say about the importance of free speech absolutism, perhaps best are any number of speeches he gave and debates he had with others on video(which can be found on YouTube) and in his book *letters to a young contrarian*...which I highly reccomend.

    Anyways. Either one believes in this first principle of free speech absolutism(again with those few exceptions I mentioned in my first paragraph that have more to do with legal and noise law issues than with the right to have and utter or Express an opinion and artistic expression...free speech) or you don't support free speech AT ALL and are a supporter of(if not inwardly yourself) authoritarian Orwellian, totalitarianism, repression and oppression towards diversity of thought, marketplace of ideas, freedom of speech/expression and an enemy of it.
    And deplatforming is tyranny period.

    Free speech is absolute, an absolute individual god/nature given right and fought for and won basic civil liberty.
     
  10. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Yes. In the general society we did not ask to be born into. But if I join a specific 'club' I accept the club rules when I join. No-one makes me join.

    No-one joins a tennis club to play rugby, for instance, because there are specific groups dedicated to that.

    The problem is when the tennis club starts believing it has the right to start trying to force it's own club rules and language upon society in general, not only restricting what everyone else can say or do but actually requiring them to say certain things?

    edited ...
     
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2020
    Contrarian Deist likes this.
  11. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    I agree but with reservations
     
    Contrarian Deist likes this.
  12. Contrarian Deist

    Contrarian Deist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2020
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    20
    Fair enough. Agreed.
    Curious, what do you mean by *with reservations* in regarding the deplatforming/no platforming thing?
     
    RJM Corbet likes this.
  13. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    I think the speaker obviously has to know his stuff and have evidence to back his statements, etc. Unlike Hyde Park Corner, an academic institution isn't going to just have any old rambling armchair expert conspiracy nut soapboxing onstage?

    But assuming that the speaker is professional and educated in his subject, and there's enough interest in what he says to fill the hall, there should not be a boycott on ideas at university -- within normal standards of truth and hate speech and so on?
     
  14. Contrarian Deist

    Contrarian Deist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2020
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    20
    What if he(or she) is well researched, knows their stuff , maybe even credentialed(maybe not, but still well researched in the topic or topics they are discussions) but also speaking on conspiratology subjects?

    Define *conspiracy nut*....OBJECTIVELY...not from a umbrella closed mindedness on the field as a whole. And why a conspiratologist...who is well researched and has alot of people who follow them and their research...shouldn't be allowed to speak?
     
  15. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Well, if we're talking about someone like the 5G anti-vaxx conspiracist Dr Rashid Buttar, there is also the standard of the truth of his so-called statistics. They sound impressive to non-medical people, they can be shredded by real medical people And that's the thing. Perhaps that's the difficulty in deciding?

    In general a good scientist will outline his hypothesis, in a Ted Talk for instance, in an honest way that allows for questions and is open to peer review and has been published in respectable journals before he is invited to speak onstage?

    David Icke may be popular, but his ideas are shredded by peer review?

    So conspiracists like Rashid Buttar and David Icke are more suited for Hyde Park -- which the internet is, in a way -- than a respectable university hall, imo.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  16. Contrarian Deist

    Contrarian Deist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2020
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    20
    You do realize that establishment science has become largely unscientific? That the talking head famous scientists and *top doctors* and the peer review system has become corrupted by ideological biases that are largely sociopolitical and which intentionally deny grants and funding to research and researchers and willfully ruins the careers of and silences and ignores scientists that *officialdom* arbitrarily deems not in line with those ideologies right?
    Just like all *official* institutions,
    There are PLENT of genuine scientists and scientific researchers they intentionally ignore, dismiss, ruin, silence, and disallow...even if they're well educated and well researched...they even did this to once respected in the institutions scientists whom start researching certain topics such as UFOs, the mystical or occulted, the paranormal, certain sociopolitical ideas not sanctioned by officialdom,etc.
    They dent them further rising up in prestige ...at the very least

    And Ted allows sociopolitical ideologues of certain pre-approved by the establishment and **officialdom* ideological bents but willfully doesnt allow ones that don't fit that.
    For example they allow pseudoscientific transgender and non binary and radical feminist and far left SJWs, but don't allow people and researchers and speakers of the other side or any other side(at least not often or very in depth or as promoted or for as long ...unless they first consent to certain standards set by the others o just mentioned). They don't allow anyone who challenges various other sociopolitical orthodoxies or scientism(there is a difference between genuine open inquiry science and the religion of scientism...and its corrupted, compromised, a priori social/political biased controlled institutions and appointed *high priests*)
    These are controlled and compromised organizations and institutions.

    Science is not an ends to be controlled by ideologues with agendas and monopolized. It's supposed to be open to new research and findings and to evolve, alter, and even drastically change as new evidence emerges. This is not how the scientism religion , pseudoskepticism(which is NOT genuine skepticism, it's a priori DISbelief, DEbunker crap...unscientific). But this is how these institutions now act. They are enemies of genuine science. They have inverted in true Orwellian fashion the meanings of science, pseudoscience, unscientific, skepticism , and logic. They are fundamentally now irrational and unscientific. They have forgotten the lesson of history...that science in the past had also been ruled over by such people who persecuted and silenced certain minds...who decades or centuries later were proven correct, that science is not about what they think it is...you know that whole *the science is settled* crap.

    David Ickes research has not been *shredded by peer review*, nonsense. He's been IGNORED by peer review, scientific establishment and pseudo skeptics wrote him off without actually listening to him or reading and weiging his research, no peer review, just a priori bias against without even looking into.
    That's not how genuine science or reason/logic is supposed to proceed. They accuse people like him of that which they themselves are guilty...being *pseudoscientific* and *irrational*.
    No one is right about everything all the time, that includes Icke, but it also includes every scientist and philosopher and logician...officialdom institutional and *peer reviewed* or not, every individual human being us fallible.
    But Icke is nonetheless a decades long well researched person into a number of fields of inquiry. So, if someone was to say pay for him to give a presentation at say a university backed by sat some university collective organization...who are people like you to sat he doesn't have that right and they don't and that others don't have the right to hear him(or researcher into any subject/field) and make up their own damnec minds?
    What gives anyone the ide they have the right to tell others not only what they can or cannot speak upon or that they can't be allowed a platform and to tell anyone else, dictate what they can or cannot hear out and then make up their own minds?
    It's like that old song from the 80s goes *

    You sure put alot of faith in officialdom institutions and official narratives(propoganda).
    When time and time again through history they've provably proven themselves unworthy of such trust and faith.
     
  17. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Not. I take a great interest in 21st Century science. I tend to go with Roger Penrose recurring universe theory at the moment.
     
  18. RJM Corbet

    RJM Corbet God Feeds the Ravens Admin

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,609
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Because he doesn't offer any evidence. Not a shred. Do you? Do you have any evidence to to support your claims, apart from the fact of modern science is a big conspiracy?

    I'd rather believe David Attenborough than David Icke.

    You are entitled to your opinions. But I'm starting to just skim your posts because it's getting a bit boring now dude
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2020
  19. Contrarian Deist

    Contrarian Deist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2020
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    20
    I couldn't remember those song lyrics I was gonna put in that last post or the title or band. Just remembered.
    Frozen Ghost- *what should I see*
    The relevant lyrics-
    *How can you judge for me what I should hear or see?
    How is it you decide...?
    You discuss what is right or wrong for us, you inundate us w/your views, you take away my/our right to choose.
    NA, NA, NA,NA, NA...show me what should I see(hear) make my mind up for me*
     
  20. Contrarian Deist

    Contrarian Deist Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2020
    Messages:
    132
    Likes Received:
    20
    Doesnt offer any evidence? Lol!
    Have you bothered to even LOOKK AT or LISTEN TO any of the evidence he's ever presented regarding specific things he's written about or said over the decades?
    If you want to claim that he hasn't *proven* certain things he's spoken/written of, we can work with that. But to claim hes presented NO *evidence* AT ALL about ANYTHING? Nonsense! You can agree or disagree on certain conclusions, but if you haven't even examined ANY of the evidence someone has presented on various things(and Icke has talked and written on many subjects over the decades) how can you just arbitrarily claim they present no evidence on anything they speak or write about?

    Isn't that what science IS? Examine and analyze evidences and arguments presented by someone on a given topic or hypothesis...and then agree or disagree with various certain conclusions they draw?

    You mentioned Penrose( I like him), but he hasnt presented PROOF on some of his hypothesis. Hell, mainstream scientists tend over backwards to say certain theories they hold are facts(or they act like it) when they are just hypothesis with varying degrees and types of evidence but no absolute proof, string theory, multiverse, list goes on and on.
    How is it THEY are *credible* and to be treated as some sort of authoritative priest class when they have not proven 100% many hypothesis and theories they hold and research and get Grant's and funding to do that research to find out if they are right or wrong on it, and get to go around acting like and presenting their theories are objective facts and even get to preach their pet theories at prestigious institutions like universities or Ted talks and in the MSM and various and sunder, but...no one else is allowed with theirs or to speak about theirs or the findings of their years of research on a given topic...scientific or otherwise?
    Pretty arbitrary favoritism...not very scientific, rational, or fair. Pretty repressive and hypocritical.

    Bill nye the science guy can do a program and go on the news and preach that people can be two spirited or be born on the wrong body...though this is purely a spiritual/metaphysical proposition or belief....not scientific.
    But...David Icke can't even give presentations on his years of research into conspiratology in the same institutions or in the media? Or the scientists that have certain hypotheses and theories and/or sociopolitical views not favored by officialdom...must not even get funding to do their research or must not be allowed a platform to speak.

    Gimme a fuckin break!
     

Share This Page