'Freedom of speech should not be restricted lightly', by Alison Assiter, Professor of feminist theory at the University of the West of England, & Miriam David, Professor emerita of sociology of education at the UCL.

(Paywalled, so summary below).
timeshighereducation.com/blog/freedom-s…
Although debates about freedom of speech are not new, the form they take now seems to be more vindictive than hitherto. Two recent case cases illustrate the point. Earlier this month, the sociology professor David Miller had been sacked by the University of Bristol.
The official reason was that his lectures about Israel, Jews & Zionism “did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff”. His disciplinary hearing included an investigation by a Queen’s Counsel who found Miller’s comments “did not constitute unlawful speech”.
But he was sacked anyway because of some unwritten rule about his “duty of care to his students”. In the same week, students at the University of Sussex demanded the sacking of feminist philosophy professor Kathleen Stock because her views about women are allegedly transphobic.
The university’s vice-chancellor, Adam Tickell, supported her right to free speech over women’s rights versus “trans-rights” or gender identity. However, the local University and College Union branch was subsequently more equivocal...
...insisting that it was against calls “for any worker to be summarily sacked” but also calling for an investigation into “institutional transphobia” – prompting Stock to claim that it had “effectively ended” her career at Sussex.
The right to freedom of expression, & the concept of human rights in general, is under attack.

Right-wing populists such as Bolsonaro, Trump, Modi & Orbán have found common cause with religious conservatives to deride the notion of fundamental individual rights.
Yet, rather than defend them, many critics on the Left also deride rights as Enlightenment-inspired, Eurocentric fig leaves for racism, sexism & imperialist apologism. No doubt both sides of the arguments in both the Miller & Stock cases would claim to be defending human rights.
However, the issue at Bristol is that an extreme action – the sacking of a prominent academic – was taken in a context where the “crime” is unclear. Hate speech is recognised (& outlawed) in English law, but the concept is also commonly used in a non-legal context to designate...
...any speech that is degrading, insulting, defamatory, negatively stereotyping or liable to incite hatred or violence against any group of people by virtue of eg race, religion, sexual orientation or disability. Both Miller & Stock engaged in such speech, their opponents allege.
The expression “hate speech” was coined by a group of US legal scholars in the 1980s. They noted that different legal systems tackled harmful racial discrimination variously. When Mari Matsuda used the term in 1989, her central purpose was to highlight how the US legal system...
...failed victims of harmful racist speech by providing them with inadequate means of seeking redress, civil or criminal. She cited several legal cases and examples not associated with actual legal proceedings and not easily actionable under the existing laws.
The concept of hate speech has been taken up by a range of people on the Left to condemn people they believe are bigoted & who, therefore, violate ideals of respect & tolerance. But it is also used by evangelicals to critique liberals who they regard as attacking their beliefs.
Hence, the philosopher Caleb Young suggests that “hate speech” is too broad a term to be usefully analysed as a single category. It includes many kinds of speech acts, each of which involves very different free speech interests that may cause different kinds of harm.
Young distinguishes four main categories of “hate speech”. Miller’s pronouncements seem to fall into his concept of “organised political advocacy for exclusionary and/or eliminationist policies”, while Stock’s seems to fall into “targeted vilification”. But neither are illegal.
Sacking Miller for making legal pronouncements risks eroding the human right to free speech. It also risks disrupting the process that underpins that Right’s rationale: allowing ideas to flourish & deriving truth, autonomy & justice to emerge from the healthy debate that ensues.
Regulating legal “hate speech” could also be regarded as damaging to democracy, especially if even universities shy away from such debate. According to free speech advocates, students ought to be encouraged instead to debate opinions with which they disagree.
This is precisely what Stock’s defenders have argued, and it is hard to disagree.

In Miller’s case, although we are not privy to the exact statements considered by Bristol, there seems at least to be some controversy over what was said.
Miller has claimed that he made factual claims about pro-Israel groups in the UK, which were misinterpreted as conspiracy theories about Israel and Jews and therefore mislabelled as antisemitism.
While we disagree with many statements made by Miller, & particularly object to what we understand to be his didacticism, we believe sacking is too extreme a punishment given the ambiguities surrounding what he actually intended to say & surrounding what counts as hate speech.
We sympathise with the students’ concerns, especially with regard to being able to express their disagreement with him. But we believe that these could all have been dealt with by less stringent and irrevocable a measure.
If rights and democracy are to survive the attacks on them, we must only curtail freedom of speech when its hateful intentions are unequivocal and codified in law.

-ENDS-

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with GET A GRIP

GET A GRIP Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @docrussjackson

27 Oct
Rishi Sunak is believed to be the UK's richest MP. 🧐

He used to work for the US investment bank Goldman Sachs, & his total net worth is estimated to be around £200 million - which would take over 10,000 YEARS to accumulate earning the "living" wage.

#Budget2021
In 2015, a full 25% (1 in 4) of all Tory MPs had an occupational background in finance (compared to just 4% of Labour MPs), & 52% of Tory MPs were privately educated, compared to 12% of Labour MPs (nationally, 6% of children are privately educated).

…nstitutethinktank.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/who-go…
A fifth of all new Tory MPs from 2019 have worked as lobbyists, including for banks, private healthcare & arms manufacturers.

Priti Patel was a corporate lobbyist, & she's lobbied for big tobacco, then as an MP she voted to overturn the smoking ban. 🧐

opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-…
Read 5 tweets
25 Oct
British Sociological Association @britsoci statement on Freedom of Speech in Universities.

Here's the BSA's statement on what is basically the very troubling oxymoronic intention of the partisan UK Government to intervene in academic free speech:

es.britsoc.co.uk/bsa-statement-…
Freedom of speech is currently the subject of intense debate within universities and learned societies, and especially in relation to the announcement in the May 2021 Queen’s Speech of the Freedom of Speech (Universities) Bill.

bills.parliament.uk/bills/2862
The Bill, which is approaching its third reading in the House of Commons, proposes “to make provision in relation to freedom of speech and academic freedom in higher education institutions and in students’ unions; and for connected purposes.”
Read 14 tweets
24 Oct
I'm late to the Andrea Jenkyn's thing.

Not sure which is the best bit of this tweet - that she accuses a man who makes his living letting strangers speak on his radio show of being "anti-free speech", or the fact she thinks James O'Brien is a socialist.
Some career highlights:

In January 2019 she stated that Kenya exports flowers to the EU under WTO terms, which was proven to be a big fat lie.

fullfact.org/europe/no-keny…
In May 2019, on the @BBCPolitics Live show, despite pushing the idea the UK could trade with the EU using World Trade Organization (WTO( terms, she was unable to name any countries that trade solely with the EU using WTO terms.

Read 5 tweets
24 Oct
Only infected people spread coronavirus. If you're not infected, you can't spread it.

The risk of transmission from the vaccinated is much lower than for the unvaccinated.

Vaccines are the best protection against infection.

Vaccinated people are far less likely to be infected.
"No, Vaccinated People Are Not ‘Just as Likely’ to Spread the #Coronavirus as Unvaccinated People."

"This has become a common refrain among the cautious—and it’s wrong."

theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
"People who are fully vaccinated against #Covid19 are far less likely to infect others, despite the arrival of the delta variant... Findings refute the idea that vaccines no longer do much to prevent the spread of the coronavirus."

newscientist.com/article/229425…
Read 6 tweets
23 Oct
Imho, Neil Oliver IS very stupid, deeply immoral, profoundly narcissistic, & dangerously irresponsible: he increasingly resembles a paranoid drug-addled conspiracy theorist, spouting cod science, rejecting enlightenment values & sounding like a poundland Alex Jones from Infowars.
Every anti-vax nutjob, ever New World Order conspiracy theorist, every gullible fool, every vulture capitalist, every grifting maniplulator, ever fake, shit-stirring troll account & every nihilistic clown in Britain will lap up Coast Guy's rambling, paranoid, delusional bullshit.
I've received a lot of criticism for my appraisal of Oliver. Fair enough - if you dish it out, you have to be prepared to take it. Which I am. I try to avoid personal 'ad hominin' attacks, but sometimes I get angry & lose my shit, as I suspect we all do from time to time.
Read 4 tweets
18 Oct
In 1971, along with Sandy Lieberson, David Puttnam had the audacity to bid for the rights to the book ‘Inside the Third Reich’ by Albert Speer.

Rank outsiders in pursuit of the rights, the publisher agreed that we might at least travel to Heidelberg to make their case in person.
"Albert Speer, Hitler’s former Architect & Armaments Minister had walked out of Spandau prison five years earlier, having served twenty years for war crimes – he patiently listened for several hours as we took him through our reasons for wanting to make the film".
"To our amazement, he agreed that if a movie was to be made, it should be produced by & for a younger generation. That was the start of an adventure which took us and our screenwriter Andrew Birkin on numerous occasions back & forth to Heidelberg."
Read 17 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(