Grant Duncan writes:
The arguments from the TEU and the Greens are intellectually weak, as they only want “free” speech on campus for ideas which they’ve pre-approved, as if they were the academic arbiters, if not the censors. (Who do they think they are?) Anything that opposes what they approve can be de-platformed or shouted down or banned on health and safety grounds.
The reality is both organisations despise free speech. They don’t want debate – they just want acceptance of their views.
In a free society, one is free to say all kinds of incorrect or even offensive things – although beware of public disapproval and of the defamation action, if one goes too far. It’s not an authentic use of freedom, however, to abuse and insult others. Speech that’s motivated by hatred isn’t really “free”: it’s in thrall to a negative emotion. But, from that, it doesn’t necessarily follow that “hate speech” should be outlawed. The law might step in, but only if we could identify a real harm, or threat of harm, to a person or community. After all, the speech-act of threatening to kill is a crime.
In principle, I’m not against the government’s proposal to require universities to adopt a freedom of speech statement. I’m just sorry that there seems to be a need for it, as university communities have let themselves and society down on more than one occasion. They could have set a better example, but they didn’t, and so parliament may have to make them think again.
Too often the left define hate speech as speech they hate, rather than speech which is criminal. There is a big difference.
The post Grant Duncan on campus free speech first appeared on Kiwiblog.
