We need to separate the right of an institution not to uphold the principle of freedom of speech within its own settings and the value of that principle generally. eg, a conference on molecular dynamics can insist that speakers all talk about molecular dynamics.
-
Show this thread
-
This does mean that that conference is not a site where anyone can talk about anything to anyone who wants to listen to it. That is not what it is for. The principle of freedom of speech is not violated because it was never a forum for freedom of speech.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
However, the organisers can uphold the principle by including scientists who have different ideas that a significant proportion wants to hear despite the objections of a faction who don't want these ideas to be heard.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
This upholds the free exchange of ideas. Those who did not want to hear the ideas could not attend or they could attend and show the problem with the ideas so that they lose credibility and fewer people want to hear them.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Or they could refuse to allow new and controversial ideas to be discussed and have that right. But then they would be subject to just criticism that they are not upholding the values of science and the organisation would be likely to lose credibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
But the issue of whether all organisations should be forced to support the principle of freedom of speech is a separate one to what that principle is and what behaviours support, undermine and oppose it.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Our piece argued for the right way to see that principle and to support it. Therefore, the response 'But institutions don't have to support it' is true but also largely irrelevant to our argument.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
I respect honest and clear arguments against the principle of freedom of speech much more than dishonest or confused misunderstandings of what it is and how supporters of it can be true to it.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
This moves the conversation on to whether an institution or an individual is or is not supporting the principle of freedom of speech and then we can argue about whether or not they should be.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I just read this again. I’m wondering about situations in which some no-platform an pre-arranged event b/c they don’t believe the speaker has a right to be heard or that others have the right to hear it. When an institution has to XL an event b/c of the demands of a mob, IDK.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
What are you wondering? That falls under not allowing others to speak or listen.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
This is very helpful, the way you’ve cut through the rhetoric and distilled it to four points. We get mired in the minutia and the buzz words. The piece was indeed elegantly written.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.