What an incredibly racist thing to say — synthesis

Oh dear, yet another person who doesn't know what racism is. Gawd help us.

Oh dear, yet another person who doesn't know what racism is. Gawd help us. — creativesoul

Isn't it funny how it's everybody else? I know what racism is when I see it, and it is you.

And certainty too?

My, my, my...

Have a look at the link I offered above. My position is clear.

Your position is quite clear. Hide behind whatever words you wish, but this is exactly how racists try to disguise their hatred. There is no justification for hating a group of people because of their skin color. I don't care what you call it.

If you threatened me with fines for not promoting free speech, using the exact same words as the government, I’d laugh in your face. Same words, different result. How do you square that circle? — NOS4A2

I don't have any trouble with the notion that words have effects, so it's not a difficulty for me. I'm not arguing that words are the sole cause of any event in which they play a part. I'm just pointing out how laughably transparent your 'argument' is that words don't have effects. Honestly I think you'd get more respect if you just had the guts to stand by your convictions. Not...you know...much, as those convictions are pretty repulsive, but better than this joke of presentation.

There's no need to establish what is, empirically the case. — counterpunch

You said it was a balance of harms. How do you propose to establish harms if not empirically? Guesswork? Shall we do an augury? I'll get the sheep's entrails...

Then what events are words the cause of exactly? I know when you’re struggling when you begin to pad your arguments with ridicule.

The government has announced plans for a "free speech champion" to ensure universities in England do not stifle freedom of speech and expression.

The champion will regulate matters such as "no-platforming" of speakers by universities or student unions.

But groups representing the sector are cautious, saying universities need to keep their "institutional autonomy".

The National Union of Students says there is "no evidence" of a freedom of speech crisis on campus. — counterpunch

For a few reasons, the discussion here could become vague and unproductive.
Without the exact context, the current government vs. universities confrontation can easily be framed as a brute political intervention: the government tries to impose its own arbitrary rules on universities and knock down their autonomy. Also, it may look obvious that it intends to determine the content of applying the freedom of speech.
So, could you briefly outline your vision of the actual context of the current collision?
Due to the Brexit and the COVID pandemic, the UK would’ve currently experienced an intensification of the spectrum of social and political conflicts.

I'm not an advocate of free speech as it's understood - the liberty to say whatever you want, to whomsoever you want, wherever and whenever you want. As you can see such a conceptualization of free speech is basically hostage to people's whims and fancy and it has, if history is a reliable witness, caused more problems than solved them. I'm afraid going down that road will spell trouble for all of us. — TheMadFool

"As it's understood" is the closest I can find in this thread to anyone caring enough about the subject to give any thought to what it is, and the above mainly as I read it to try to clarify what it is not. So far everyone seems to be doing a lot of handwaving about "free speech" without giving any thought at all to what it is, presumably supposing they already severally know. So a challenge: point me to where that was done and I missed it, so I can do a "my bad" and apologize, or try to make a short simple statement as to what you believe free speech is. As it sits, near as I can tell from the posts, no one here knows.

Perhaps one example will suffice:

The law, at least in the US, is that the government cannot suppress one's speech. — Hanover

And this of course is stupidly wrong.

Obviously there are different understandings, each perhaps with unstated qualifications that might rescue it. First is the informal, naive understanding that free speech means that everyone has a "right" (whatever that means) to make what @TheMadFool describes above an unconditioned right to make noise. At the other end is the idea of speech being protected by law, but hardly an unconditioned right.

Imo it's not worth troubling too much over what the "speech" in free speech exactly refers to, but the "free" ought to get a lot of our attention. What is it? What limitations does freedom itself impose? And so forth. Secondary questions concern any burden to provide a platform, or to be obliged to listen (hear).

You said it was a balance of harms. How do you propose to establish harms if not empirically? Guesswork? Shall we do an augury? I'll get the sheep's entrails... — Isaac

I said the harm principle is a generally accepted limit on free speech, but sought to make clear we were talking about the unambiguous harm of people being trampled to death, because someone screams fire when there is no fire. I did not say it was a balance of harms. You said that, and I do not entirely follow your logic. Assuming reasonable limitations, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre - where is the harm in an equitable right to freedom of speech?

I suggested, that when we argue this out, we will ultimately arrive at the principle of greatest equal liberty as described by John Rawl's in A Theory of Justice. When everyone's interests and rights are taken into account and averaged out, that's what we end up with. So there's no need; even if it were possible - which for all kinds of reasons it isn't - to empirically establish the facts. That's required by what you said - a balance of harms, which is not my idea. It's yours.

You’re right. Cancel culture is a huge problem, and it is forging a generation who fear ideas. I just think there are better ways to defend free speech than let the state violate it. — NOS4A2

Thanks. I wish I could say the same. But I still don't get how the state is violating free speech by protecting it. You say this:

I don’t trust that a “free speech champion” should compel people to advocate for free speech under fear of fine and sanction. That seems to me the opposite of free speech. — NOS4A2

Fair enough, but then you also say this:

And it’s not a question about whether a university ought to give a platform to fools, but weather a university should bend to the pressure of protesters and deny both the rights of a speaker and those who wish to see him. — NOS4A2

Surely these measures are about giving the university a legal obligation to stand up to such protestors demands, and so ensuring freedom of speech. I don't see how that's violating free speech.

For a few reasons, the discussion here could become vague and unproductive. Without the exact context, the current government vs. universities confrontation can easily be framed as a brute political intervention: the government tries to impose its own arbitrary rules on universities and knock down their autonomy.

Also, it may look obvious that it intends to determine the content of applying the freedom of speech. So, could you briefly outline your vision of the actual context of the current collision? Due to the Brexit and the COVID pandemic, the UK would’ve currently experienced an intensification of the spectrum of social and political conflicts. — Number2018

There's nothing arbitrary about free speech. It's a human right, a cornerstone of western civilisation, and fundamental to academic integrity. What academic arguments do universities fear cannot be pursued under the rubric of free speech? I would ask if those are legitimate arguments, and if they are worth pursuing?

I don’t know much about the UK education system, so I’m not quite sure what their measures would exactly entail, or how much the government gets to decide curriculum. But I don’t like the idea that universities should be legally required to actively promote free speech for the same reason I don’t think they should be legally required to actively promote Marxism. When the state compels people to promote a certain stance under the threat of sanction we have entered the realm of censorship.

But I don’t like the idea that universities should be legally required to actively promote free speech for the same reason I don’t think they should be legally required to actively promote Marxism. When the state compels people to promote a certain stance under the threat of sanction we have entered the realm of censorship. — NOS4A2

That's a concern to me as well, as I noted previously, at least as a matter of definition. What will constitute promotion of free speech under the law? It happens defining "promotion" will involve defining "free speech" as well.

It's a human right, a cornerstone of western civilisation, and fundamental to academic integrity. — counterpunch

Well, just what does it mean to say free speech is a "human right"? Does it mean the state should be prohibited from restricting it? Does it mean that other people should be prohibited from restricting it, by the state? Does it mean that institutions, as opposed to individuals, should be prohibited from restricting it? What would constitute a violation of the human right of free speech? What would be the exercise of the human right of free speech?

If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one.

When the state compels people to promote a certain stance under the threat of sanction we have entered the realm of censorship. — NOS4A2

Freedom imposed by law with legal penalties for not obeying its strictures is tyranny in double-think. — unenlightened

I'm always worried when agreement comes from unexpected quarters.

That's a concern to me as well, as I noted previously, at least as a matter of definition. What will constitute promotion of free speech under the law? It happens defining "promotion" will involve defining "free speech" as well.

Great point. As their sanctions suggest, I think we can trust that their version of free speech extends only to views they agree with.

The idea of freedom of speech derives from the Enlightenment philosophers, who developed it out of the need to protect themselves and their peers from persecution from the political/ecclesiastical authorities. It was never meant as a right that any citizen may exercise to say whatever he will...

...that it has become so in our day is evidence that they were not prescient; that they were unaware that their political views would result in the democratization of the university, and the dilution of the idea of free speech into the notion that Everyman ought to be able to say what he will.

There was a contract made b/w the philosophers and the citizenry: “Let us say what we want,” the former proposed to the latter, “and, though what we say offend your beliefs, nevertheless, we will profit you through the application of our theoretical investigations to your material lives, by making you wealthier and healthier”, etc.

That, my friends, was the modern social contract.

The ancient notion was that the tension b/w philosopher and citizen was unresolvable, something that just had to be suffered or dealt with.

Well, just what does it mean to say free speech is a "human right"? Does it mean the state should be prohibited from restricting it? Does it mean that other people should be prohibited from restricting it, by the state? Does it mean that institutions, as opposed to individuals, should be prohibited from restricting it? What would constitute a violation of the human right of free speech? What would be the exercise of the human right of free speech? If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one. — Ciceronianus the White

If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one.

Huh? In what way are we unable to define free speech as a human right? There's a massive literature on the subject. Acquaint yourself with it and you'll have answers to your questions.

I don’t know much about the UK education system, so I’m not quite sure what their measures would exactly entail, or how much the government gets to decide curriculum. But I don’t like the idea that universities should be legally required to actively promote free speech for the same reason I don’t think they should be legally required to actively promote Marxism. When the state compels people to promote a certain stance under the threat of sanction we have entered the realm of censorship. — NOS4A2

I understand that free speech is a Constitutional right in the US - and held to be near absolute. Also, I'm led to understand that the US is not a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's not the case in the UK. The UK does not have a written Constitution, but is a signatory to the UNDHR - at least at present. Until recently, the UK was affiliated with EU human rights instruments, the ECHR. I think that resides in the Council of Europe - and so is outside the EU, but don't know if the UK is still part of the Council of Europe because of brexit. So it's all a bit up in the air.

A British Bill of Rights has been mooted on more than once occasion by this government, and there have been worries about what exactly that means - given that brexit was as crooked as a dog's back leg. Consequently, for me, this determination to protect free speech is a welcome commitment by the brexit government, because it has seemed very much like the walls are closing in of late, sandwiched between radical brexiteers and the even more radical political correctness mongers - it's been a struggle to maintain a centre ground, sane and independent mindset.

On how these measures would play out, all we've heard so far is an intention to impose a legal obligation on universities to ensure they do not stifle freedom of speech and expression. Specific measures are yet to be announced, but it seems unlikely to me government would involve itself in the academic content of university courses, or go so far as to require mandatory free speech training! That would be oppressive, I agree!

Then what events are words the cause of exactly? — NOS4A2

If I give you the wrong directions to the pub, and you go that way, my words have caused you to do so. It's not that hard.

I know when you’re struggling when you begin to pad your arguments with ridicule. — NOS4A2

It wasn't ridicule, it was insult. You should recognise the difference.

I suggested, that when we argue this out, we will ultimately arrive at the principle of greatest equal liberty — counterpunch

Yes, and I asked how you are to measure liberties lost and gained in populations far removed from your own without any empirical information about them.

When everyone's interests and rights are taken into account and averaged out, that's what we end up with — counterpunch

Again, how to you measure the interests of populations far removed from your own without any empirical information about them?

You're basically just suggesting that you should sit in your ivory tower and pronounce "We shall ban speech A because I've had a bit of think about it and I reckon it will have the effect of removing liberties to too great an extent, but we shall allow speech B because (after a coffee) I had another little think and it seems to me that it won't have that effect". I know this will come as a deep shock to you, but we're all just a bit reluctant to run the world based on effects an uneducated layman reckons might come about...

Again, how to you measure the interests of populations far removed from your own without any empirical information about them?

You're basically just suggesting that you should sit in your ivory tower and pronounce "We shall ban speech A because I've had a bit of think about it and I reckon it will have the effect of removing liberties to too great an extent, but we shall allow speech B because (after a coffee) I had another little think and it seems to me that it won't have that effect". I know this will come as a deep shock to you, but we're all just a bit reluctant to run the world based on effects an uneducated layman reckons might come about... — Isaac

Have you not read John Rawl's A Theory of Justice? Or John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. The principle of greatest equal liberty isn't something I came up with. And it's not a state secret that the politically correct left are "claiming linguistic territory" as a means to power, restricting people's liberties, and undermining academic freedom.

Here's some wikipedia entries you could read, just to give you an idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice#The_greatest_equal_liberty_principle

You're arguing that that there are two apples in one bag and two in another, therefore four apples altogether, and when I challenge that claim you direct me to Peano's axioms. I'm not challenging the method by which you added the two quantities, I'm challenging your method of establishing those quantities in the first place.

In order to ensure equal liberty you must a) measure the liberty each party has, and b) establish how much liberty the action in question removes/gives to each party. Both are empirical matters.

In Rawl's we begin with a veil of ignorance, and it's from behind this veil of ignorance - rational individuals choose the kind of society they want to live in - not knowing what their place in such a system might be. When we argue it all out, and believe me - Rawl's does so in an exhaustive manner, we arrive, inevitably at the principle of equal liberty.

The equal liberty principle is a consequence of the fair rights of each individual, in respect to the fair rights of every other. There's no need for empirical data - that could not in any case be gathered in any reliable way.

Also, I didn't direct you to Peano's axioms. You must be confusing me with someone else...someone who's never even heard of Kurt Godel.

In order to ensure equal liberty you must a) measure the liberty each party has, and b) establish how much liberty the action in question removes/gives to each party. Both are empirical matters. — Isaac

How do you propose to measure liberty?

How do you propose to measure liberty? — counterpunch

How do you propose to ensure equality of you don't? What would equality mean in an un-quantified variable?

How do you propose to measure liberty?
— counterpunch

How do you propose to ensure equality of you don't? What would equality mean in an un-quantified variable? — Isaac

I can only take that to mean you have no answer. It's your assertion empirical data is required. I say it's not possible to reliably gather such data. This is a theoretical problem to which we have a ready answer. Ensure everyone has freedom of speech. Why is that a problem for you?

This is a theoretical problem to which we have a ready answer. Ensure everyone has freedom of speech. Why is that a problem for you? — counterpunch

Because ensuring it clashes with many of the other liberties we want to ensure everyone has.

Because ensuring it clashes with many of the other liberties we want to ensure everyone has. — Isaac

There is no right to not be offended in the declaration of human rights.

There is no right to not be offended in the declaration of human rights. — counterpunch

Who said anything about being offended?

There is no right to not be offended in the declaration of human rights.
— counterpunch

Who said anything about being offended? — Isaac

You didn't say anything. I can only assume what you mean by:

Because ensuring it clashes with many of the other liberties we want to ensure everyone has. — Isaac

OK - I'll ask. Many other liberties? What do you mean by that?

OK - I'll ask. Many other liberties? What do you mean by that? — counterpunch

The argument against the sort of language that is being opposed it that it creates an environment in which the subjects of that language are less free to pursue their lives than they would be in the absence (or at least less pervasive use) of that language. That, for example, someone expressing racist views at a university has the effect of making those views seem more legitimate, which in turn encourages more open expression of those views in people's actions which in turn restricts the liberty of the subjects of those views.

This either does happen or it doesn't. Whether it does or doesn't is an empirical matter.