UCLAN suppressing freedom of speech?

Liberation

Forum Patron
Patron
The Irony here is that you can bet your Mortgage that the offended person was not a Muslim, it will have been a lefty white priviledge doo-gooder happy clapper.

You leave Phil alone...... And he has a point if the delinquent was a dingle.... :D
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
It was Wiki, but the general point is found everywhere even if the wording is slightly off.
I wouldn't call them caveats - what is the point of free speech if you are using it to try and suppress others human rights? Or make them feel like they aren't entitled to their own freedom of thought. This is especially an issue in controlled environments such as universities - rather than public spaces around the city.
The other problem lies with the definition of debate. You can't just insult someone, or a religion and call it a debate. You can have constructive discussions/disagreements about it, making valid points - but not insults. This also follows on to my points about what was actually said in the class.
What a stupid viewpoint. You idiot.








;)
 

Regardless

Forum Patron
Patron
It was Wiki, but the general point is found everywhere even if the wording is slightly off.
I wouldn't call them caveats - what is the point of free speech if you are using it to try and suppress others human rights? Or make them feel like they aren't entitled to their own freedom of thought. This is especially an issue in controlled environments such as universities - rather than public spaces around the city.
The other problem lies with the definition of debate. You can't just insult someone, or a religion and call it a debate. You can have constructive discussions/disagreements about it, making valid points - but not insults. This also follows on to my points about what was actually said in the class.
Seriously though Akademik, I think you've made a very easy statement there - cherry-picked the bits that are fairly uncontentious, I think most British people would agree that free speech should not be used to suppress the human rights of others. From the definition in your earlier post, I would hope that a reasonable person would accept a law that stops people from using "threatening", "abusive" "behaviour" "intending to cause alarm and a breach of the peace" and whilst there will always be grey areas, I would hope that a judge can identify when a line has been crossed.

I used quotation marks and underlining for emphasis.

But EQUALLY, at face value, you also break that law if you use "insulting" "words" "likely to cause distress". Now we are at the other end of the spectrum.

If a religion is widely known to instill in its followers that farm animals must be slaughtered in a particularly ritualistic way. And also instills that God's word is precious and His power and presence are irrefutable... then even if (hypothetically) I were to be super calm in arguing that there is no god... or maybe I argue that the deity/prophet that they follow is not genuine... that a different deity is the true God - and that ritualistic (cruel) slaughter should be made illegal - then they might be very likely to get very distressed - especially if it was a demonstration where thousands of people were calmly saying the same thing.

How would I/we be able to legally express my freedom of speech to protest against the ritualistic, potentially cruel (IMO) method of slaughter - on the grounds that I don't agree that there is a god that demands it? Without distressing some people who might feel their freedom to follow a religion and religious rituals are under attack?

Those are two example from near two ends of a spectrum... both which breach that law you described. There are many many scenarios in the middle.

It is my opinion that good, fair, sensitive debate should be encouraged enormously within our society... but I don't think we should legislate against words that can be perceived by the listener to be distressing. Notwithstanding that... I do appreciate that we cannot leave minorities open to bullying. The law should prevent deliberate provocative, threatening words or behaviour that a 'reasonable person' would see as INTENDING to cause extreme distress or a breach of the peace.

Still plenty of grey areas in my definition (which I'm sure should be tidied up a bit) but I think the law that apparently prevails, based on your wiki post, is slanted against free speech.
 

PNEPPC

First Team
There's a huge amount of guesswork going on here. Wouldn't it be best to wait until people know the actual facts of the case before leaping in with opinions?
 

raefil

Forum Patron
Patron
There's a huge amount of guesswork going on here. Wouldn't it be best to wait until people know the actual facts of the case before leaping in with opinions?
This but it doesnt fit the usual anti muslim narrative ;)

Cue stomping of denying feet :)
 

northender0602

Forum Patron
Patron
So say there were 100 people in a room having a discussion about anything and only one was offended and complained. Should the speaker be suspended?
 

raefil

Forum Patron
Patron
A) We dont know if or anyone was offended.

B) We dont know if the character came out with racist tropes

C) We dont know how many where in the room.

All we have is a very vague report about something that Preston UKIP have got hold of and making a deal about it.

everything on this thread is assumption and nothing more.
 

Mickypne

First Team
A) We dont know if or anyone was offended.

B) We dont know if the character came out with racist tropes

C) We dont know how many where in the room.

All we have is a very vague report about something that Preston UKIP have got hold of and making a deal about it.

everything on this thread is assumption and nothing more.
And I suppose this tells your your problem perhaps........ the media. We don't know the full story.
 

Madferret

First Team
The Irony here is that you can bet your Mortgage that the offended person was not a Muslim, it will have been a lefty white priviledge doo-gooder happy clapper.
Oh do fuck off. The complainant was not mentioned and you leap to the same tired, racist stereotypes that belong in the fucking dark ages.
 
Top