You can believe that but also still believe that people shouldn't be free to cause wilful offence under the protection of "free speech" (which, as we all know, isn't guaranteed anyway.)

Commonly, free speech is limited where someone is encouraging violence against a person or group (hate speech), or when there is measurable harm done to a person (defamation). Being triggered because someone voice a different view about a political subject is neither hate speech or defamation, but it is something which "safe spaces" has recently been made to restrict.

I haven't been following this very closely which is possibly why I haven't seen an example of this "political triggering" claim. Do you have some examples?

> Commonly, free speech is limited

I think you're talking about the governmental limits on free speech there - private individuals and institutions have no such constraints and can limit whatever speech they want (within the bounds of legally-mandated discrimination, obviously) because (as I understand it, I'm not a US lawyer) they're not bound by the First Amendment.

As a rightwing, small 'c' atheist UK conservative I'm daily offended by what I consider an avalanche of vituperative 'free speech' by people who do not hold my views. I'm happy to live with that and argue my corner. Exclusive of violence, those with different ideas in their heads can insult me as much as they like; it's their arguments to which I'll be attentive. Maybe I'll even be persuaded on some issues.

Ideologies whether political or religious must be subjected to strong criticism or we're all finished on this planet.

I don't have a problem with avoiding certain subjects if I know someone has serious problems dealing with e.g. memories of something that's happened to them. Nor would I have a problem changing the subject or being more careful about working if someone points out that it is uncomfortable for them.

But I would mind having to pre-emptively self-censor because someone might take offence at something that is not intended to offend.

Personally, if someone started talking about wanting to censor on this kind of basis, I'll insist I'm being triggered and they're causing me distress - I'm sure that would lead to an interesting conversation.

Just because -you- don't mean it to offend or -you- don't believe it's offensive doesn't mean it isn't -to someone else-.

> I would mind having to pre-emptively self-censor because someone might take offence

Don't you do that anyway? I do that every day - at work, to my nephews, to my parents, to strangers. What's the big deal?

I haven't claimed otherwise.

> Don't you do that anyway? I do that every day - at work, to my nephews, to my parents, to strangers. What's the big deal?

The big deal is not self censoring, which yes, we all do out of politeness and respect. The big deal is being forced to self censor things we consider appropriate to talk about in context out of the concern that someone present might possibly find it offensive, rather than being able to rely on anyone present who finds offensive to be able to speak up or leave.

If I'm having a political discussion, and were to feel forced to not express my opinion because someone might take offence, I would be largely unable to express my political views, for example. If everyone were to avoid saying things about politics I find offensive, I could effectively shut up debate by entering pretty much any political debate.

> and were to feel forced to not express my opinion because someone might take offence, I would be largely unable to express my political views, for example.

That would be problematic for you (and I fully agree that it can be effectively used to silence political dissent) but you don't have an automatic right to express those views wherever, whenever, and to whomever you wish anyway.

I don't generally intend to offend. But I often intentionally state my opinions of things knowing it might offend someone. E.g., if at a political debate, I won't avoid stating my view just because someone might take offence. The intent isn't to cause offence, and I will respect it if I know there are people present that find a specific subject particularly difficult, but I don't believe we should accept that people have a right to not be offended if they choose to participate in a meeting knowing certain subjects will come up.

> but you don't have an automatic right to express those views wherever, whenever, and to whomever you wish anyway.

I have not suggested I do. But that does not mean I should not take severe offence if e.g. an organization like a student union effectively shuts down meetings where views the majority doesn't like, but that some students want, are likely to come up by insisting on "safe spaces".

I have yet to be at any political meeting that would be a "safe space" if you insist on offending no-one, for example. But these means of censorship are unsurprisingly being applied in exceedingly one sided ways. Incidentally a lot of the people that regularly gets a platform at many of these places are people whose views I find deeply offensive.

While censorship in the total sense is a bad idea, there is some need for contextual awareness that some anti-censorship people try to gloss over. You shouldn't be able to go into a Catholic mass and yell over the ceremony and then claim "censorship" when security/police come to remove the disruption.

People congregate within certain parameters because there's an agreed-upon premise that is to be used as a foundational basis for further exploration and which is not open to debate within the prevailing context at the time. There is a place for "safe spaces" insofar as they involve civil and voluntary peaceful assembly for a common purpose, places like churches and trade shows, where people are expected to accept some basics as forgone conclusions at least for the duration of the meeting.

Thus, while I am free to publish a post on my blog that is scathingly critical of node.js without invoking the wrath of government or institutional censors, I should probably not feel free to present "node.js: used exclusively by idiots" at a node.js conference in a non-satirical way (the conference organizers would probably quash this talk; I could either cry "censorship" or just accept that the venue was an improper place to try to make the argument that node.js is used exclusively by idiots, no matter how fervently I may or may not believe that).

For further example, if there is a strictly pro-thing subreddit that has rules that state only pro-thing things should be posted, instead of becoming upset at the "censorship" and decrying it as a "safe space", I should move on to a subreddit that has moderation policies and basic premises that I find more agreeable and allow those who favor a positive interpretation of thing to continue to assemble peacefully.

I hope we don't lose respect for free private assembly whilst trying to point out the absurdity of the SJW's "safe space". The SJW "safe space" is bad because they essentially mean that they should have a force field that protects them from coming across any idea or concept in public that they don't agree with, which is of course ridiculous. Traditional "safe spaces", i.e., venues that control the direction of the conversation and allow their attendees to freely come and go, are not bad.

This is only tangentially related, but I just wanted to jump on here as I think the quoted bit is a potential example of anti-safe-space rhetoric that could be used to imply that the control of the message at private meetings constitutes a free speech/censorship issue. There is a place and time for some things, and that's fine. I hope you'll forgive my extrapolation from your statement here.

So unless you're forced to listen to me, even if you'd rather not, I don't have free speech?

Bullshit.

The point is that you are free to remove yourself from discussion that you don't want to participate in. You're free to publicly complain about an individual's views.

What is more worrying is the desire to prevent those views being aired to other people as well. You have the right to not listen; you don't have the right to prevent other people from listening. That's what a 'safe space' policy can result in.

The students behind this find the notion that they're somehow silencing nationally-published journalists by telling them they're not welcome farcial, and I agree.

If these students believed the rooms would be empty, I strongly suspect they wouldn't have a problem with letting them come and be humiliated while their opponents made fun of them outside.

Presumably most of the opposition to these speakers is because they know perfectly well that they will have an audience, who want to hear what they have to say.

Free association doesn't include the right to decide, having listened to such an argument that one does not wish to associate with someone with a particular set of views?

I look forward to Fry hosting David Irving on Qi. I look forward to your spirited push for the argument creationism needs to be taught in science classes.

No platforming someone is not the same as not inviting them into your space. Public spaces are not safe spaces.

Inasmuch as there is a real point of debate here, and not just the whinging of butthurt right-wingers who are used to having a platform given to them whenever they ask, the question is whether students have a right to control who the university gives a platform to. This is an area of legitimate struggle (students say yes, administrations say no), but it's overshadowed by the bogus argument that this is actually about censorship.

No platforming began in universities and is still mostly confined there because the tactics necessary for it would get the police called almost anywhere else. The university is not solely the illiberal left's space. When they try to no platform someone they're almost always trying to get the university administration to ban the attendance of someone another university club or society invited banned. Fuck that. Other people's safe spaces aren't their safe spaces. If they want people gone or want to make their attendance impossible or unpleasant let them use violence and incivility and suffer the consequences.

> Inasmuch as there is a real point of debate here, and not just the whinging of butthurt right-wingers who are used to having a platform given to them whenever they ask, the question is whether students have a right to control who the university gives a platform to. This is an area of legitimate struggle (students say yes, administrations say no), but it's overshadowed by the bogus argument that this is actually about censorship.

Some students say yes, others say no.

Their views are deeply offensive to me, and would have been back when I was a student too. I get sick to my stomach at the kind of attitude it demonstrates.

If they genuinely want to provide a "safe space" then they need to shut the hell up about these policies too, as they too are likely to cause offence. Otherwise it is simply hypocritical attempts to stifle the speech of just the people they disagree with.

I agree that shutting out certain polticial views is bad, but I also don't feel anyone should be forced to platform or shoved into politics when they really don't want to deal with that. I mean, then it just becomes a case of forcing people to listen to you and that's not free speech at all.

Preventing them from plastering large gore pictures is very different from preventing them from showing those pictures to people who voluntarily comes to a meeting, or after asking someone if they want to see.

To me, the latter is what is deeply problematic. Especially considering that a lot of issues that are now accepted by the mainstream would have been in the "deeply offensive" category when the movements started out.

E.g. imagine a student union today denying a platform to advocates of gay rights. It's not that long ago that such speakers would have been considered extremely offensive in the UK, and were routinely denied a platform.

The moment student unions and the like sets themselves up as arbiters of what views are acceptable, they are no better than the many people who over the years have fought to deny platforms to gay rights advocates or advocates of womens suffrage, or civil rights regardless of race, or in favour of interracial marriages, or to end slavery. Yes, someones views may be vile to you, but if there's one thing history has shown us, it is that the majority has been on the wrong end of a vast number of issues for a long time before things changed. And it's easy to assume we're on the right side.

The problem is that everyone believes they're on the right side, which means a substantial proportion of us are wrong no matter the issue. The moment it becomes acceptable to censor, that means a substantial proportion of us will want to censor views that will put us squarely on the wrong side in retrospect.

I fail to see the relevance of safe spaces and trigger warnings to what you wrote. Large portions of the student body hated the anti-abortion stuff and you protested against it and worked around it. Go you. That's how things should be done.

> I agree that shutting out certain polticial views is bad, but I also don't feel anyone should be forced to platform or shoved into politics when they really don't want to deal with that. I mean, then it just becomes a case of forcing people to listen to you and that's not free speech at all.

You may not be interested in politics but politics is interested in you. You can't shut out politics because politics is what happens when three or more humans get together. That's what entryism is about. One would not think hobbies as marginal as atheist organisations, SF con goers and computer gaming would be worth infiltrating and taking over but they've all become vastly more political recently.

No one's forcing you to attend the Marxist/Nazi/Libertarian/Socialist speaker's talk. They're objecting to the attempt to prevent them speaking at all.

Well, you see, the tunnel was called a safe space. And people were waving around signs saying "trigger warning: gore pictures ahead".

> No one's forcing you to attend the Marxist/Nazi/Libertarian/Socialist speaker's talk. They're objecting to the attempt to prevent them speaking at all.

I don't see how this is possible, because the internet exists and also because people can make their own talks off-campus or so. Of course, no business establishment or property owner, or even university is obligated to give them a platform. No one is obligated to give any idea or viewpoint a platform. Certain subjects are approved of for platforming by the people that set the rules for how their buildings are to be used. Is that censorship?

For public universities, why not?

It's just that when a public figure like Peter Tachell is on the receiving end of it they can use their media presence to complain, unlike the people Fry didn't want to engage with on Twitter. In the Tachell incident all that happened was a student decided not to attend an event with Tachell. He was not being censored or "no platformed" in any way. The result was he threw a tantrum and wrote articles attacking the student in national newspapers (where the student was given no opportunity to reply).

What people like Bindell and Greer and Tachell and Fry are demanding isn't the ability to say things without censorship. What they are demanding that that they can go onto a campus and force student to listen to their talks.

That's just completely false. Lindell/Greer/Tatchell/Fry are pointing out, in my opinion entirely accurately, that there is a trend towards stifling and opting out of discussion under the guise of safety, in place of engaging with debate.

Who do you think invites speakers to campus in any case? Obviously some people are interested in what these people say. That's absolutely not 'forcing' students to listen to talks, and I am speechless that you could honestly think that was the case.

You're wrong. All of this has already been published, and it was a single click away from the submitted article. The LGBT rep of the Students Union was clearly trying to no-platform Tatchell.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchel...

> In the emails, sent to the organisers of a talk at Canterbury Christ Church University on Monday on the topic of “re-radicalising queers”, Cowling refuses an invitation to speak unless Tatchell, who has also been invited, does not attend.

That individual is trying hard to get Tatchell no-platformed. Luckily the SU rejected it.