Are you not following your own comments? You asked me what I reckon:

So there are limits to free speech. On what grounds? — Isaac

A forgettable remark, admittedly - but you could at least pay attention to what you wrote. Given your question; and given that we both agree that free speech does not imply absolute free speech, it's entirely reasonable for me to ask what you consider to be a reasonable limit on free speech. So, again:

What speech in question? Does the word "blackmail" cause you distress? Because there are calls emanating from universities to censor all words using the term "black" in any negative way, even though the etymology of the word blackmail is Gaelic - bla-ich, and has nothing whatsoever to do with black people. Do you think that a reasonable limit on free speech? — counterpunch

I reckon it is not reasonable, because of the principle of equal liberty.

p.s. I feel obliged to take this opportunity to point out that your previous post was a complete waste of time in that it didn't move the discussion forward one iota. The "stuff I reckon" thing was pretty good, but otherwise, a complete bust. Try and make the next one better.

's entirely reasonable for me to ask what you consider to be a reasonable limit on free speech. — counterpunch

I didn't say it was unreasonable of you to ask, I said I had no interest in answering.

I reckon it is not reasonable, because of the principle of equal liberty. — counterpunch

Which depends on the extent to which it restricts liberty...which is an empirical question about reality (real people having real liberties, actually restricted). Since you've no interest in establishing what is empirically the case, there's little point in pursuing that line is there?

Free speech doesn't bypass academic merit. It bypasses politically correct censorship. — counterpunch

So the proposal is, that because academics are politically biased, politicians should interfere in the freedom of academia to shape it in a more politically unbiased way. Really? Academics are politically biased and politicians not?

We already have climate change deniers paraded year after year in the name of free speech all over the media, speaking of political correctness gone mad; and now we are to have it imposed on universities too, because it quite suits Putin to thaw out Siberia and open up his Northern coastline. And it's political, so academics all shut up and listen!

Freedom imposed by law with legal penalties for not obeying its strictures is tyranny in double-think.

Which depends on the extent to which it restricts liberty...which is an empirical question about reality (real people having real liberties, actually restricted). Since you've no interest in establishing what is empirically the case, there's little point in pursuing that line is there? — Isaac

There's no need to establish what is, empirically the case. That's the point. It's impossible anyway, because it's a policy about how people conduct themselves in future - not in some small and distorted reflection of the past derived from survey questionnaires by an institutionally marxist sociology department!

Rawl's has done the work for us. If it is justice you seek then, when all the possible permutations of conflicts of interests in justice are settled, they arrive in the end at the principle of equal liberty.

Political correctness is anything but a principle of equal liberty. It's identity politics in reverse - demanding, at the same time that we shouldn't stereotype people, while stereotyping people on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, suggesting that the individuals interests are defined by these arbitrary characteristics - and suggesting that everyone who belongs to an identity group has the same interests, and the same power relations to every member of another identity interest group. It's intellectually inane, hypocritical, and very obviously politically motivated.

So the proposal is, that because academics are politically biased, politicians should interfere in the freedom of academia to shape it in a more politically unbiased way. Really? Academics are politically biased and politicians not? — unenlightened

No, the proposal is to protect freedom of speech in universities. It's not unreasonable to ask questions about what that means, and how it will be achieved, but the specific measures have not yet been published, so at this stage - we can only really look at the problem. I know you're absolutely desperate to distract attention away from the rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments of universities; but there's no paradox in protecting freedom of speech from those who want to close it down in the name of tolerance.

We already have climate change deniers paraded year after year in the name of free speech all over the media, speaking of political correctness gone mad; and now we are to have it imposed on universities too, because it quite suits Putin to thaw out Siberia and open up his Northern coastline. And it's political, so academics all shut up and listen! — unenlightened

What has protecting freedom of speech in universities got to do with climate change deniers in the media? I should probably say, at this point - that while I'm obsessed with sustainability - the left wing approach is completely wrong. Having less and paying more won't work. There is no limits to resources. Resources are a consequence of the energy available to create them, and so we need massively more energy - not less. Wind and solar are insufficient to meet our needs. They will cost a fortune to install, last 25 years - impose the same costs again, while producing a mountain of tech scrap, and barely take the edge of carbon emissions. To compensate for this inadequacy, dictatorial government would have to undermine living standards with taxes that would fall unequally on the poor who spend a greater proportion of their incomes on energy, food and travel. The rich would hardly feel it. The poor would be crushed. That's a left wing idea of sustainability and you complain that government is mandating free speech?

Freedom imposed by law with legal penalties for not obeying its strictures is tyranny in double-think. — unenlightened

Everything but the kitchen sink!

Oh dear, not another one. I'm not going reply to any comment arguing that insisting on free speech implies universities having to entertain flat earthers. It's a disingenuous, any pretty damn stupid argument. — counterpunch

You need to think this through. The argument submitted is not disingenuous nor stupid. It goes to the heart of your belief that you want to protect free speech. You're openly admitting that it's completely proper to deny a professor the right to freely state the earth is flat. Upon what principle can a professor deny the earth is flat with impunity, but he can't deny climate change is occurring, that vaccines don't work, that masks don't stop covid, that the 2020 US election was stolen by the Democrats, that life begins at conception, or that there is an organization of rich liberal pedophiles running the world?

That is to say, if you're going to deny the right to free speech to those claims you find outlandish, how are you going to define what is outlandish? And how are you going to do this without allowing a political agenda to creep in?

You're openly admitting that it's completely proper to deny a professor the right to freely state the earth is flat. — Hanover

No. I'm not. As I've said several times - freedom of speech does not bypass academic merit.

Upon what principle can a professor deny the earth is flat with impunity, but he can't deny climate change is occurring, that vaccines don't work, that masks don't stop covid, that the 2020 US election was stolen by the Democrats, that life begins at conception, or that there is an organization of rich liberal pedophiles running the world? — Hanover

If a Professor wants to pin any or all of those positions to his resume - he's quite welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't take his class, but...

That is to say, if you're going to deny the right to free speech to those claims you find outlandish, how are you going to define what is outlandish? And how are you going to do this without allowing a political agenda to creep in? — Hanover

In academia there are various measures of success. A full lecture hall, publishing papers and books, peer review, all of which feed into employment prospects, seniority and pay. I'm not about to deny freedom of speech to positions I find outlandish, even if I could. Let's not lose sight of the reality; that government is proposing to protect freedom of speech in universities.

I know you're absolutely desperate to distract attention away from the rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments of universities; — counterpunch

I know you're a fuckwit.

I know you're a fuckwit. — unenlightened

I wish! But sadly, at present, no fuck and very little wit!

No, the proposal is to protect freedom of speech in universities. It's not unreasonable to ask questions about what that means, and how it will be achieved, but the specific measures have not yet been published, so at this stage - we can only really look at the problem. — counterpunch

So the problem is "rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments," apparently, and not at all the pressures of commercial interests or governments domestic and foreign, or wealthy individuals using donations to influence. It's people like me, a retired hotel porter, who are distorting the minds of the young. That must be why you're a fuckwit.

Did you notice how you just called me a fuckwit, and I didn't take it personally? That's because I know that you don't know me; and get hardly a glimpse of the person I am, or fathom the range of reasons for my views - among the multitudes on this forum. If I have ascribed to you - a motive you in fact don't have, there's really no need to get upset about it.

But I do seem to recall, you made a poor argument on the first page - that seems quite mischievous, and whether deliberately intended to distract attention from discussion of the problem these measures are intending to address, has nonetheless derailed the argument, and burdened me with a fatberg of posts claiming universities will have to give platforms to:

Flat Earthers, propagandists, bullshitters, conspiracy theorists, and purveyors of fake news — unenlightened

Even if there's a problem with:

commercial interests or governments domestic and foreign, or wealthy individuals using donations to influence. — unenlightened

I do not see how that relates to measures intended to protect free speech. Whereas,

"rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments," — unenlightened

...does describe the problem these measures are intended to address.

So there are limits to free speech. On what grounds? — Isaac

I suspect that the free speech clause in the US might have been actually motivated in a similar way as freedom of religion.

Namely, I once heard the opinion, which I find plausible, that the constitutional clause on the freedom of religion in the US was intended to get the various Christian factions to stop fighting with eachother for supremacy (because they were causing general unrest and collateral damage with those fights). It wasn't out of some deep appreciation of religious diversity or notions of equality.

I think this goes for free speech as well. Imposed equality is one of the government's ways to get people to watch their words, talk less, or to shut up altogether.


It's the same as getting a bunch of children to stop fighting over toys: give them all the same type of toy. Or even better: make them earn their toys by cleaning toilets.

Lurking behind this entire discussion is the question “what is the proper relationship b/w the university and the government?”, and that is a question that is very old, reaching all the way back to when the university was called the “academy”. — Todd Martin

And back when it was only the elites who had access to higher education. It seems that the elites somehow figured out what is proper to say and what isn't and didn't make much of a fuss about it, or settled it with a duel.

Troubles began when higher education became open to plebeians who didn't have the necessary class prowess required to handle social issues gracefully. And when duels became officially illegal.

Freedom imposed by law with legal penalties for not obeying its strictures is tyranny in double-think. — unenlightened

Plebeification on steroids.

No. It's called being silenced by a mob. — Book273

Yet the world has worked that way for millennia.

Do you recall a day of life when you didn't walk on eggshells? Honestly?

I live in a society where a man on a TV politics talk show was told by a member of the audience that his opinion was illegitimate because of his skin colour; and that woman thought she was in the right - because the man was white. I live in a country pervaded by a form of reverse identity politics - that clothes itself in the garb of moral righteousness while stereotyping people, and discriminating against them on that basis. — counterpunch

This is simply small town mentality, it has been around for millennia. It just seems more egregious when it's broadcatsed on tv and the internetz.

This is simply small town mentality, it has been around for millennia. It just seems more egregious when it's broadcatsed on tv and the internetz. — baker

The concept employed against this man was "white privilege." His name is Lawrence Fox - and the programme was Question Time on BBC One.

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and insight the very racism sentiment it is purportedly intended to address.

The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. It's like taking drag queens into primary schools in Birmingham to read to children. These people get off on stuffing their political correctness down other people's throats, and dare them to object - and then decry them as bigoted.

This is a pernicious, post modernist, neo marxist strategy. Everything, in their philosophy is a power game. They have no moral values, recognise no truth, have no belief in progress - all that is a smokescreen to disguise the naked pursuit of power. It is what Orwell warned us about in 1984:

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever!”

Are you black by any chance?

Are you black by any chance? — baker

No. I'm a straight white male - which is to say, the very last in the politically correct line. Back of the bus with no 'ism' cards to play. I'm not allowed to pursue my interests. I'm not worthy of political representation, because of my skin colour, my sexuality and my gender.

Well, karma's a bitch.

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and instigate the very racism it is purportedly intended to address.

The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. — counterpunch

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, nor the benefits of acquiring such knowledge. So many people equate privilege to being wealthy. It's not about being wealthy.

Well, karma's a bitch. — baker

Karma for what?

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, nor the benefits of acquiring such knowledge. So many people equate privilege to being wealthy. It's not about being wealthy. — creativesoul

I know exactly what the concept of white privilege is about, but it's not apparent - from the words, is it? The words used don't describe the phenomenon. They are designed to provoke exactly the sort of misapprehension from which you think I suffer, but no. I don't. And I don't need you to give me a lecture on the subject - and no doubt get that warm virtue signalling tingle in your extremities from doing so.

I know exactly what the concept of white privilege is about... — counterpunch

No, I do not think that you do. If you did, you wouldn't have said the things that you have.

No, I do not think that you do. If you did, you wouldn't have said the things that you have. — creativesoul

The apparent meaning of the words is offensive to people struggling to make ends meet. My grandfather worked down a coal mine from age 11, and was then conscripted to fight in the war. My father was in construction - and work was intermittent. Sometimes there was money - sometimes none. You coin the term "white privilege" - with no apparent attention paid to the connotations, and in the next breath tell me I can't use the word "blackmail" because it might be offensive? Are you fucking mental?

There's an older thread called Privilege. I suggest you have a look.

I know exactly what the lefty jargon term 'white privilege' means - and it is quite dissimilar to its apparent meaning.

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, — creativesoul

Rolls eyes. Sighs in condescending manner.

Yeah, get fucked. I know exactly what you think it means, and what it appears to mean. Don't pretend that's an accident. You people are sensitive to the apparent meaning of words - so why use this term?

My participation begins on page 7. Take a look. you might be surprised at what I say.

Here

My participation begins on page 7. Take a look. you might be surprised at what I say. — creativesoul

Why not post a link? Or better yet, copy and paste the passage, you think would further this discussion. Seem like you're deflecting. You've been called out - and that's precisely what will happen when universities have an obligation to protect free speech. You're not going to be able to get away with this kind of thing anymore.

I did.

You’re right. Cancel culture is a huge problem, and it is forging a generation who fear ideas. I just think there are better ways to defend free speech than let the state violate it.

Well then he ought rationally deliberate the opposite, it would be far less problematic. Unless, of course he couldn't, in which case the words would have inevitably caused him to think that way...but since words can't do that apparently, he's free to deliberate whatever he chooses to in response to those words.

If you threatened me with fines for not promoting free speech, using the exact same words as the government, I’d laugh in your face. Same words, different result. How do you square that circle?

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, nor the benefits of acquiring such knowledge. So many people equate privilege to being wealthy. It's not about being wealthy. — creativesoul

What an incredibly racist thing to say.

Before you start telling other people what the story is, you might want to spend a few more years learning about people and the world and how it works.