Read on Twitter
I’ve never started the day by absolutely losing it at @BBCRadio4, but there’s a first time for everything. Their segment on free speech was as pernicious and harmful as anything I’ve ever seen.
Here’s a breakdown, written with fingers shaking with anger at the pure wrongness.
Here’s a breakdown, written with fingers shaking with anger at the pure wrongness.
Just to get this out of the way first. Please don’t start a sentence saying “my view is that of the government” and “end it saying that you are challenging “the orthodoxy of these activists” when actually your view is not that of the government’s legal position.
The main point is simple. Right to free expression does not mean right to an audience. I cannot highlight this enough: a right to speak is not the same as a right to be heard.
A right to speak is also not the same as a right to debate. Debate is a very specific form of discussion. It is not all “speaking”. It is not all “expression”.
Debate isn’t even the standard way things are done, outside of the current political mindset. (Side note: let me tell you about Quaker Business Method.)
Freedom of free expression is also not a requirement that people agree with you.
They need to tolerate you. They need to accept your existence. They need to not break you bones with words, which hurt more than sticks and stones. But they don’t need to agree with you.
They need to tolerate you. They need to accept your existence. They need to not break you bones with words, which hurt more than sticks and stones. But they don’t need to agree with you.
Freedom to speak is also not the same as being invited on to every platform.
It is absolutely ridiculous that someone could say on national radio, with all seriousness, that they do not have a platform.
It is absolutely ridiculous that someone could say on national radio, with all seriousness, that they do not have a platform.
Saying you should be welcome on all platforms is like saying that because you live in a house, you should get an invitation to go into all houses.
What we have in the UK is freedom of expression. We also have the freedom to say “no thank you” and to walk away.
It should be perfectly ok to say “I have made up my mind on this, I have read your views, and I don’t want to talk any more”.
It should be perfectly ok to say “I have made up my mind on this, I have read your views, and I don’t want to talk any more”.
No platforming is hurtful. But is is not necessarily wrong.
It can be hurtful to find that a lot of people disagree with your views. Many people disagree with my views (nuclear disarmament, UBI, refugees welcome, gender over sex).
But that’s freedom of choice.
It can be hurtful to find that a lot of people disagree with your views. Many people disagree with my views (nuclear disarmament, UBI, refugees welcome, gender over sex).
But that’s freedom of choice.
No platforming happens after someone has expressed their views on an issue. No platforming can, pretty much by definition, only happen to someone who has already HAD a platform.
It should really be called “no MORE platforming”.
It should really be called “no MORE platforming”.
I dislike no platforming as an idea. I think it should happen infrequently, I think it is a shame when it does happen — but I think occasionally it’s absolutely necessary.
Really, I think most people are the same.
Really, I think most people are the same.
To conclude and reiterate: freedom of speech is balanced by the freedom of the other person to walk away.
Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free to keep on speaking at the other person as they walk away from you down the street.
Freedom of speech does not mean that you are free to keep on speaking at the other person as they walk away from you down the street.
This was mainly what it was this morning. The nodding along with this, little suggestion that it might be a bad idea. https://twitter.com/bbcradio4/status/1361633902587219968
