A proposed British law creates a serious threat to academic freedom and free speech. The law seeks to force universities to take action to stop young people being exposed to extremist ideas and speakers. The law is consistent with a trend toward greater speech regulation in the West As I discussed in column yesterday in the Washington Post.
We have seen a crackdown on free speech in the West. For other recent columns, click here and here and here.
This law is part of the government’s counter-terrorism and security bill and imposes a new obligation on universities, prisons and probation services, schools and health authorities to prevent people being drawn into terrorism. Schools would not have to perform risk assessments on visiting speakers, including checking the content of any speeches or debates beforehand, to ensure they are not promoting “extremist” or “radical” ideas.
A Home Office consultation paper insisted that universities “must take seriously their responsibility to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism.” This new “responsibility” includes reporting students “at risk” of being drawn into terrorism to external anti-radicalization programmes and to actively challenge extremist ideas, including non-violent extremism.
This ill-conceived measure would drive into the heart of academic freedom and turn universities into agents of the government in censoring speech. Universities are based on a foundation of free speech. Indeed, the lack of success of governments in France, England, Canada and other countries in increasing speech regulation should, if anything, cause a review of their own approach. It is better for such ideas to be voiced and answered rather than suppressed. More importantly, you do not answer those who would deny freedom by curtailing it.
We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, particularly in England ( here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Much of this trend is tied to the expansion of hate speech and non-discrimination laws.
England’s premier educational institution have been a critical part of its national identity and contribution to the world. This law is a concession not a confrontation for extremists. They want to deny free speech and this law shows that the greatest injuries in the war against terror tends to be self-inflicted.
Source: The Guardian
The problem here is students have been encouraged to close their minds on anything different than the liberal bias by teaching staff. Even when invited, many conservatives are treated badly, even pie throwing, and the speaker often leaves shortly into the talk.
Our upper-level education is for liberals only. Conservative students hide their political thinking, otherwise they are ridiculed.
That is particularly true on the Elite East Coast. Obama was supposed to lead this country deeply into Alinsky’s views. Instead, people are learning who Alinsky was, who supports Alinsky, and larger concerns about our rights and the attempts to take them away.
From my perspective there are still enough of us whose education was unbiased and have made decisions based on information, not defined by one political party.
We’re grey-haired, but our country still needs us!
You know ‘slippery slope’, etc. here, here, here, here. That’s the lawyers who want to be politicians or Supreme Court Judges write to train.
1. I agree that this law is a bad idea.
2. I don’t know what empirical basis there could possibly be for a statement like this: this law shows that the greatest injuries in the war against terror tends to be self-inflicted. (emphasis added)
Is that just the way lawyers are trained to write?
Would supporting the Magna Carta and Writ of Habeas Corpus be considered extreme speech?
Ross – the Magna Carta supports the rights of nobles.
‘Proposed law’,
‘A Home Office consultation paper insisted that universities “must take seriously their responsibility to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism.” This new “responsibility” includes reporting students “at risk” of being drawn into terrorism to external anti-radicalization programmes and to actively challenge extremist ideas, including non-violent extremism.’
Sounds like doing something to stop people teaching people it’s OK to yell fire in a crowded theatre, or looking for people who are susceptible to rioting and then firing them up to the act.
When one reads the vitriol dispensed at the first sight of the UK government trying to fashion something akin to stopping thugs from looking for potential thugs to perform murder and mayhem one gets a glimpse of the need for protection of the people by the government.
“The reason that America has a First Amendment is because of the Brits. But the origin of it is from British origin and the English Bill of Rights. This Cameron twerp needs to get voted out by his own party. He needs to get voted out by force of arms if need be. Someone over there in limey country needs to propose a Constitution modeled on our Constitution. They need a Paul Revere and perhaps some brain food.”
The Prime Minister is merely head of the majority party, not an elected King or perhaps Queen. The check and balance system is far more immediate. The labour party can combine with the liberal democrats and force a vote of no confidence in emergencies thus forcing an election and reversing extremist tendencies of one party that is not in power with a complete majority. The Prime Minister itself can lose its elected riding and be taken out as head of the ruling party thus safeguarding against rogue or renegade omnipotent leaders. In order to be Prime Minister or head of the party that has the most votes, that person must be elected by the people of his or her own constituency. The Obama haters should surely love that. So, an unpopular government can be taken out and replaced at the will of the people at any time. This is a threat that provokes those in power to revamp extremist positions that might bring down their government. Sound interesting?
The UK government is not purchased by special interest groups and billionaires. There are appropriate laws to keep big money out of politics. This results in less puppetry and no puppet factory as is found in Washington.
The Parliamentary system with a selection of political parties far in excess of ‘two-us and them’ is a far more democratic system.
Every maniacal redneck in Great Britain is not armed to the teeth, so it is highly unlikely that Cameron will be voted out by, ‘force of arms if need be.’
Whether it is ‘proposed’ for debate or done covertly, a government will take measures to intercept what it sees as a threat to the way of life it has been elected to protect. The US has done this, is doing this, and will do this, whether as was done in the ’50s during the Red Scare, or after 9/11, or now where lawyers can’t put their finger, you know the finger that writes and then moves on to get elected.
The litmus test will be when Turley runs for office and if he gets elected, confronts his earlier self. What will he say? What will he do?
Darren Smith:
Great points! Jonathan Turley wrote a great article a while back in the Washington Post (and on this site) with solid arguments supporting increasing the court to 19 members.
Think the “Terry v. Ohio” SC ruling in 1968 and similar rulings (contrary to the letter & spirit of the Fourth Amendment) were some of the court’s largest blunders ever and should be overturned. These faulty rulings in the 1960’s and 1970’s created the slippery slope that the Patriot Act was built upon.
Ross,
I remember that article. Here is a link to it:
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/06/24/the-nineteen-member-court-the-case-for-expanding-the-united-states-supreme-court/
UK Free speech and MI6 special operations
I still wonder about Princess Diana and her dating boy friend Dodi Fayed.
The conspiracy theory of body guard and chauffer Henri Paul being the executioner.
Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al-Fayed has claimed that the couple were executed by MI6 agents.
Ross, you are correct about the need for an independent judiciary.
One of my core arguments has been that the greatest potential threat to liberty comes not from terrorism, fifth columns, or others; it comes Congress and the Presidency. It could manifest generally from the disintegration of liberty through successive executive and legislative actions and must be mitigated by the court. Now, having said that they Supreme Court is not fully immune from this as we have seen with some rather deplorable precedents handed down in the 19th century and such. A way to manage this would be to broaden the number of justices above the present nine. Having more justices could help forestall a concentration of power which becomes easy to accomplish when a few justices leave office and are quickly replaced with unscrupulous justices ushered in by the other two branches. Having more, coupled with the lifetime appointment makes this less likely.
This really does seem to be a trend.
Are we going to follow suit, or remain the only shining city on a hill?
“Our problems is; is that we have weak leadership, Obama at the head, and this will only continue until we get strong, powerful leadership to stop this.”
And what will you do when that strong, powerful leadership decides that the “this” which must be stopped is YOUR “way of life”? or MY “way of life”?
We have a “gentlemen’s agreement” on US campuses banning conservative speakers.
A big part depends on an “Independent Judiciary” based on clear constitutional definitions – not allowing executive branch bureaucrats by themselves to operate outside of those constitutional boundaries.
Maybe the U.S. could start leading by example!
For years and I mean years; I have been very concerned about how the European nations have accepted the Muslim way of life all too easily. Cameron is extremely weak on the War on Terror. Our problems is; is that we have weak leadership, Obama at the head, and this will only continue until we get strong, powerful leadership to stop this. They are all afraid of offending; and yet no one is afraid to offend their own citizens.
If you are a real leader; than draw the line; and don’t allow anyone to cross by negotiating or compromising our way of life.
Unfortunately, there are a bit a handful and we are in for a very long struggle.
Yes, too little, too late.
They encouraged Muslim immigration to improve their multiculturalism bona fides and got terrorism for thanks.
Now they’re trying to stop them from speechifying about their jihadi ways?
Won’t work.
But Professor Turley, Europe is now at war with fascist Islam.
They can call it what they like, but it is a war.
Instead of curtailing their speech, they should be closing mosques and ejecting Muslims.
At a minimum, stop them from adding to their number.
Islam is incompatible with a free West.
They have consistently demonstrated this wherever they go.
Stopping speech is feeble and likely counterproductive, merely forcing it underground.
This could affect U.S. citizens if nations are allowed to share intelligence.
In other words an overseas facility could spy across international borders on us then share the information. This likely practice (based on newspaper reporting since 9/11) would undo Bill of Rights restraints on U.S. government activities.
UK citizens can choose an Orwellian surveillance state if they please, but it appears to violate Americans’ constitutional rights also – so this is very much our business.
The wonderful British govt created “Londonistan” making the UK a haven for Islamist terrorists booted out of other Muslim countries for being terrorists. Naturally they and their followers gravitated to universities to recruit and stir up trouble. And that is the govts excuse for bridling free speech. And they expect us idiots to believe they (govt) have clean hands. Aren’t the Muslims turning out to be very useful for justifying wholesale surveillance/spying on citizens/throwing out habeas corpus/gagging the populace.
The events around Paris certainly will hasten this measure’s adoption.
I do not however see Mr. Cameron as an opportunist bent upon seizing the moment to usher in policies that are self serving or those of his political party. Rather, I believe from his own point of view he is making a decision he regards in the best interests of his fellow citizens. Yet, the UK has a slightly different regard for free speech versus outrageousness that our country has long since normalized. Plus, the public there certainly is growing fearful and resentful of public demonstrations of Islamists proclaiming they intend to bring down traditional British society which many see as inciting the cancer of terroristic activities in their country.
This is not necessarily a new construct in the UK. In fact, similar measures were crafted in the wake of The Troubles. One anecdotal example was that of Gerry Adams who was for some time subjected to a voice ban on broadcasts.
As yet, this is just proposed. It has a way to go.
Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.
The reason that America has a First Amendment is because of the Brits. But the origin of it is from British origin and the English Bill of Rights. This Cameron twerp needs to get voted out by his own party. He needs to get voted out by force of arms if need be. Someone over there in limey country needs to propose a Constitution modeled on our Constitution. They need a Paul Revere and perhaps some brain food.