Thread by @SVPhillimore

At ⁦@SpeechUnion⁩ launch of Jacob Mchangama’s book - he also has a podcast! podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/cle…

Importance of scholarship around these issues says @Fox_Claire we know that the first casualty of war is truth. Censorship becoming more prevalent in the UK. Have to defend people’s right to say daft things. The Online Harms Bill is one of greatest threats in modern times.

This is the here and now. Fantastic thing about this book is the wide sweep of history - it is international and global.

JM: this country has played a ‘schizophrenic role’ in the development of free speech. Free speech is life blood of democracy but some point to unmediated online speech to say it is being weaponised against democracy.

Now not allowed to access Russian disinformation - even if you wish to counter it. Some seek to purge their ideological opponents from university. To abandon free speech is a cure worse than the disease. It can be used to amplify distrust and do serious harm.

But misguided to attempt to roll back free speech. Our future will be more ignorant, autocratic and oppressive. My book bolsters case for free speech. New communication technology is inevitably disruptive and opposed by those who it might undermine.

1858 the NY Times lamented the use of the telegram. Obama declared online misinformation ‘the biggest threat to our democracy’. Previous marginalised groups given a voice. Traditional gatekeepers fear the newcomers will manipulate the masses.

Throughout history some thought free speech a luxury. But groups fought to expand the right to free speech. Younger people are uncomfortable with untrammelled free speech out of genuine concern for minorities. But robust free speech and equality are not mutually exclusive.

Gandhi 1921 - freedom of speech and association the ‘two lungs’ to allow us to enjoy the oxygen of democracy. Mandela not able to speak out, but global media did. He highlighted the essential role of free speech in defeating apartheid. No one has monopoly of truth.

Laws, mores and practices that constrain free speech do a disservice to society. But racism and inequality still with us today. So should we silence bigots? Laws against hate speech are inherently vague and prone to entrench the values of dominant ‘in groups’.

The prosecution of black people for racist hate speech added to tension. Hate speech now covers failure to moderate social media comments - In Denmark, criticism of gender identity has been criminalised. In Uk feminists are targeted for arguing that sex is a reality.

These cases undermine democracy - how can we credibly lecture Russia on quashing political dissent when we do the same? Free speech is difference between a system where joke about leader results in ticket to a gulag. Attempts to ‘balance the playing field’ leads to new oppression

Society’s do need to react to those who wish to over throw democracy - this is the dilemma. Clear and present danger. Those of us who have benefitted from advances in human affairs must resist the force of free speech entropy. Use vigilance. Limit use of disinformation.

As Orwell says - if we are sluggish about free speech, inconvenient minorities will be punished.

Interesting ‘hate speech’ introduced by Stalin and meant ‘any defence of capitalism’ says @toadmeister. As soon as anti misogyny laws are passed the first person to be prosecuted will be a gender critical woman for insulting a man in a dress <laughter and applause>

Making reasonable evidence based arguments is part of the way to deal with threat to free speech but only first - many won’t listen, claim spurious authority. Humour and satire are incredibly effective - look at reaction to @TitaniaMcGrath

‘One tweet from @TitaniaMcGrath and they go mental!’

How should we go about this says @Fox_Claire ? Jacob hopes his book will change minds and be part of conversations but accepts not everyone will read it. A lot of bad arguments out there - if I can contribute to setting the record straight that is helpful.

But agrees that humour and appeal to emotion are important - need broad alliance, and that is always the case when trying to defeat a threat.

Obstacle to winning this war says @toadmeister is because the ‘other side’ have claimed to be ‘on the right side of history’. If you allow ‘disgusting bigots’ to speak you are on the ‘wrong side’.

How do we challenge this? Jacob looks at civil rights movement in US which won a number of landmark cases to promote free speech. Confront the woke with these examples, they genuinely do not know this history. Power in being able to show the stories of those who were repressed.

There is a real ‘historic amnesia’ says @Fox_Claire - knowledge is great way to confront this. @jowilliams293 - this book is of enormous benefit to set out argument and detailed history. A monumental task.

Also gives us the history of censorship over 2,000 years. Shows the very same arguments for censorship with same rhetoric are employed again and again. Idea that its possible to outlaw offence - blasphemy.

Relationship between free speech, censorship and power. I talk about the woke having ‘won’ - look at what you can and can’t say. You now cannot say a woman is a biological reality. Can’t say this on a university campus or in the arts world. Realise the limits of free speech.

Presenting themselves as victims gives them their power and status in society, to enforce that this is what you are not allowed to say. But their position is insecure - wouldn’t otherwise need recourse to censorship if they were confident they had ‘won’.

The connection between free speech and democracy. book shows how every genuinely progressive movement was preceded by demands for free speech. That is tremendously inspiring.

We need robust culture to protect free speech says @Fox_Claire JM we need critical mass of acceptance that free speech is needed for flourishing society. Even if you disagree fundamentally you can be good neighbours etc.

You can have all the legal protections you like says @jowilliams293 But if you haven’t got a culture supporting free speech its meaningless. Can’t argue for free speech in universities then demand a ‘crack down’ on pro Putin academics. How safe is free speech in their hands?

Panel talking about culture as more important than law - not sure I understand this. Culture and law are intertwined. One supports the other.

FSU - want to change the law so if employers claim you have brought the company into disrepute, they have to prove tangible harm. This would be great! Can see the dangers from #ForstaterTribunal about the thought terminating cliche of ‘offence’.

Warns against #lawfare says @Fox_Claire - seen gender critical feminists too busy with legal strategy than winning the argument <I continue to struggle with this. Tool to enforce shift in culture is the law>

Audience member - we need books like this for children, need to have this in schools. Amen!