Are the "free speech" advocates in this case trying to argue that every single person who asks to speak at every University must be invited to do so otherwise the University is fascist?
Are they saying that there is nobody who's (already well publicised and freely available) views shouldn't be treated like they have nothing to offer to the discussion (or that they do far more harm than good) because it's so full of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and outright lies?
Should we be inviting AIDs dissidents to speak to medical students? Holocaust deniers to speak with history students? Flat earthers to speak with geology students? That history channel "Aliens!" guy to speak with archaeologists?
I'm perfectly willing to accept that some people are being denied a platform unfairly but when this stuff comes up no one ever seems to bother to justify the value of the speaker in question. It jumps immediately to "boo censorship!". Either "censorship" can be ok in some circumstances or this isn't really an example of censorship.
This debate about what is and isn't free speech is itself part of the process of free speech and democratic pluralism. It's kind of annoying a lot of the time but it's a permanently on-going thing. There will never be a time when everybody all agrees about where to draw the line for this stuff... that's kind of the fucking point!
Are they saying that there is nobody who's (already well publicised and freely available) views shouldn't be treated like they have nothing to offer to the discussion (or that they do far more harm than good) because it's so full of misunderstanding, misrepresentation and outright lies?
Should we be inviting AIDs dissidents to speak to medical students? Holocaust deniers to speak with history students? Flat earthers to speak with geology students? That history channel "Aliens!" guy to speak with archaeologists?
I'm perfectly willing to accept that some people are being denied a platform unfairly but when this stuff comes up no one ever seems to bother to justify the value of the speaker in question. It jumps immediately to "boo censorship!". Either "censorship" can be ok in some circumstances or this isn't really an example of censorship.
This debate about what is and isn't free speech is itself part of the process of free speech and democratic pluralism. It's kind of annoying a lot of the time but it's a permanently on-going thing. There will never be a time when everybody all agrees about where to draw the line for this stuff... that's kind of the fucking point!