I think you're mistaken. The effects are somewhere between difficult and impossible to quantify, but look into the case of Lindsay Shepard. How can you claim there's academic freedom under those conditions? — counterpunch
Hm. So we ought socialise the free market of ideas when the stuff we want said gets ignored? — Banno
Free speech doesn't bypass academic merit. It bypasses politically correct censorship. — counterpunch
So... Universities ought give a platform to fools? I'm at a lose to see what your point is. — Banno
Free speech doesn't bypass academic merit. It bypasses politically correct censorship. — counterpunch
Why would they have any fear? The new rules have only so far been communicated with speech and apparently speech has no effect whatsoever on other people...so if these people fear fines as a result of some speech, that's their problem.
Oh dear, not another one. I'm not going reply to any comment arguing that insisting on free speech implies universities having to entertain flat earthers. It's a disingenuous, and pretty damn stupid argument. I — counterpunch
Oh dear, not another one. I'm not going reply to any comment arguing that insisting on free speech implies universities having to entertain flat earthers. It's a disingenuous, and pretty damn stupid argument. In my previous post I suggested you look at the case of Lindsay Shepard. Did you?
it's actually hard to understand that the majority of students back then were far more conservative than the hippies that are now described as to be the dominant group back then. — ssu
I'm offended by people who seek to take offence. — counterpunch
Personally I think the government, especially one as censorial as the UK, should not compel universities to promote free speech with the threat of sanction. I believe universities should be able to do what they want. If people need a little safe-space university, where scary ideas are verboten, let them have it. — NOS4A2
The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theatre without cause. It would cause panic, and unambiguous harm. It's not controversial to accept this would have no free speech defence. Any advocate of free speech would accept this limitation. Child pornography is another accepted limitation. Accepted limitations generally revolve around the harm principle. — counterpunch
One can listen to a speech and fear what he comes to understand are the intentions of the speaker. This is a rational deliberation, not something forced into the mind by words. — NOS4A2
So why the song and dance about free speech? — Isaac
You think the speech in question does not cause sufficient harm, others (in the universities) think it does. — Isaac
Do you think that a reasonable limit on free speech? — counterpunch
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.