If Amber Rudd wants to make this about free speech then I’m game. (Thread)
You see, I agree with Jacob Rees-Mogg. I believe free speech is a bedrock of democracy. Which means I wholly support the deplatforming of Amber Rudd.
Sometimes I feel “who the hell am I to tell someone this”, and this is one of those times, because it looks like I’m going to have to explain free speech to @UniofOxford too.
As far as I’ve read, the organisation ‘UNWomen Oxford’ invited Amber Rudd to speak at #IWD2020 as an ex-minister, to discuss her role as minister for women and equalities. 
This led to people exercising their right to protest and employing their free speech, which in turn resulted in the committee changing their mind.
People used their free speech to affect change. That is what it is there for.
To argue that people’s protests should have been ignored, in the face of authority, is an argument that free speech should be impotent.
That millions of people can march in Westminster and the politicians don’t have to take the slightest bit of notice if they have already made a decision.
And millions of people could sign a petition and no politicians need to care.
It's an argument that free speech only matters when those in authority says it matters.
That you can speak only when you are spoken to.
That you can speak only when you are spoken to.
That’s the free speech Amber Rudd is arguing for, the one that Jacob Rees-Mogg wants, and to my horror, Oxford University.
Let’s be clear, Amber Rudd was going to use that platform because she was invited, not because she was entitled.
And cancelling on her, 30 minutes before the event, when there wasn’t a crowd carry pitchforks outside the venue was definitely rude.
The timing of a cancellations really should be balanced against the level of protest. The amount of notice she was given was indefensible.
But de-platforming isn’t always about what they want to say, but can be because some people believe they don’t deserve that level of respect.
Considering who was putting pressure into this argument, this could be the case in this particular instance.
I will go further and say that because Amber Rudd stood down and took responsibility for her part in the Windrush scandal, I don’t agree with this de-platforming.
Yet I find it very hard to judge harshly a group of people who want to hold their politicians to a higher standard than I do.
Even so, the fact remains Amber Rudd didn’t have the right to speak, she was invited, and then she was disinvited.
If people want a meaningful debate on why she was disinvited, it should be on the substance of the arguments made against her speaking, not on some empty argument about free speech.
Because a committee changing its mind as a direct result of people exercising their right to protest is, very much, not an attack on free speech.
It is free speech in action.
/End
/End
