There has been a lot in the British media recently about the right to platform people with phobic views. Peter Tatchell among others has been challenging university voices on banning speakers with anti lgbt, right wing or racist views. He believes that everyone has the right to free speech. He has been criticised for being transphobic and even racist for doing so, despite his full support for equality over the past Fifty years.
Recently university students have walked out or protested on the views in seminar’s of Katie Hopkins and Germaine Greer’s views on transgender females shouldn’t be classed as females, referring to some with male pronouns.
We need to ask ourselves, can we learn from sitting through these lectures in order to understand and defeat the enemy or is it a clear protest to work out?
In January big brother UK allowed a homophobe, would be mayor of London into the house, being the first out he didn’t move from his views and some would deem it as a witch hunt towards him, however he most certainly caused conversation & showed the country how old fashioned and unwanted his views truly were, comparing lgbt adoption has child abuse, the country rightly stood up to him.
Like his views were not a reflection of Channel five or the production team, the views of Hopkins hysteria or Grear’s faded seventies philosophy shouldn’t be seen a reflection on the universities, apart from in the capacity of learning.
So I asked the question in this week poll I do on Twitter.
Should someone with a phobic message be given a public platform?
#freespeach (eg. Uni seminar’s) #lgbt #scruples
Naturally I have made this scruple suitable for different scenarios in order to make it universal. There are many examples of this situation. I was accused of being vague & referring to the university row. Although here in the UK it is a well known debate, my followers are global and bear this in mind I have to try and include everyone. The idea behind my polls is to engage thought and debate, not to say this is set in stone, it’s not and never is. Clearly this isn’t a public opinion poll or a reflection on a country, My followers are mainly of the #lgbt family and over 50% are from the Americas. Which was pointed out…..
It’s the #1stAmendment, folks! As much as I #hate to say it, even the #morons have the #right to #FreeSpeech.
So opinion does alter due to country, but also sexuality, gender etc.
Take note that the comments have mostly come from the ‘YES’ camp, if you have a strong constructive view on why no, please contact me, I will add them.
I think it’s very dangerous to stop people not being able to take a platform. If we did, then would it not anger the people that have been silenced, causing their views and actions to be more extreme under the excuse they were not allowed an opinion. Does it not devalue the entire system if we silent someone?
Can we not learn and engage with these people, making us stronger to defeat phobic views?
Even our views sometimes need to be challenged in order to make them less challenged in the future too, trying to find a fair answer for everyone.
Naturally some need stopping totally, who are extreme and dangerous, but are we as bad as phobic people have been in the past when not allowing the lgbt family a choice?
On a personal level we all have the right to walk out and turn our backs on the negative voices, as I have done on occasions when some voices have been unbearable, this is no different than someone switching off the TV because that ‘racist’ guy is on again, or a time when I blocked someone on a social media site for xxz. All we do is protect ourselves and allow someone else to take over.
This is more for your own protection rather than turning away from opinion and doesn’t/shouldn’t affect the right for others to listen and learn.
No one has the right to attack individuals using their beliefs as gospel. By saying I believe in this and therefore you must obey by it is wrong.
It pains me to say we need to listen to others views, despite how we feel even if it’s simply to learn how to arm ourselves to fight for the battle of equality.
So yes, if I was allowed to I would have voted yes but with caution.
Some of your views were…..
Of course not, freedom of speech shouldn’t be used as a way to preach hate & promote hate against other people/communities.
However unpleasant, easier to silence speakers of hate by exposing them. Lies thrive in the dark but shrivel in the sun…
Phobia is precisely what it is & should not be swept under the rug if we as a society intend to converse & deal with it I also believe that when phobic views go underground they become particularly dangerous.
like it or not, if we are all to be equal, they have as much right to speak as anyone else
Who decides what’s phobic then? Bloody regressives
it’s not free speech otherwise
@PartTimeRefugee can’t deny a public platform. But we do need a lot more platforms dedicated to evaluating the mass media and propaganda.
Thank you to all my followers on Twitter, who took part in this week’s poll, I couldn’t have done it with you
Whose comments I have used!