A Lot About The Free Speech Union

[Paigntonian]

on Newsnight tonight. I joined. Maybe fellow ABers might be interested as I'm sure we must all agree with free speech.

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, What do you mean?

[pixie374]

Seven, 17:03... hmmm...I would err on that side. But this is only about speech. Racism, harassment, violence and so on.... are illegal in any case. So, as long as laws remain the same. I think.

[Untitled]

"Wokeists, Snowflakes, Social Justice Warriors, cyber censorious bullies, and other such dangerous people"

2013 called they want their bêtes noires back.

[Ellipsis]

> Ellipsis, What do you mean?

Sticking with the holocaust denial example - this is illegal in some countries and not others. So when you wrote ...

> People should be able to say what they want to say - but if they say something that is against the law then they must face the consequences of breaking the law. In that instance I doubt this organisation would defend that.

Would the organisation defend the freedom of speech required to deny the Holocaust?

Also, to quote your example: "an Imam inciting others" - this may not be illegal in the country in which the Imam resides. If the Imam is a member of the FSU, will the FSU defend the Imam's right to free speech?

I'm not saying it should or it shouldn't. All I'm saying is that freedom of speech is a tricky area, as events in the USA are showing, and that for an organisation to set itself up as the "Free Speech Union", it should make clear where it sees the boundaries, if any, especially if it's asking for money.

[naomi24]

Atheist, //But the idea of free speech is often used by rather disgusting people to justify rather disgusting behaviour.//

That depends upon individual perceptions of ‘disgusting behaviour’. Very often valid criticism is deemed unacceptable - or even disgusting - by those who object to that criticism. It's become an acceptable way to silence the opposition - and that, I think, it what this organisation is about.

[Untitled]

I think it just seems to be a way to get its founders on telly to have the same argument with the same people over and over again and get paid to do it.

[Khandro]

Ellipsis; //> B. Sans doute How do you know this? I've been searching for something to back that up and can't find anything. Perhaps you have a link.//

No I haven't nor do I need a "link", I know Toby Young & what he stand for. Ifd you are interested in freedom of speech & what the Union stands for, why not sign for the newsletters & see what it does with its funds, which go to the barristers who have done some good work in defending those who have been treated unfairly.

Do that, or sit on the sidelines carping about something of which you know nothing. I can't be arsed with you anymore.

[Untitled]

if you have access to that information then why won't you answer his question khandro.

[jim360]

What makes the criticism "valid", objectively? Clearly it depends on the topic.

It's also important again to emphasise that the opposition is not silenced by being uninvited to certain events or dismissed from their jobs. "Free Speech" is a defence from the Government, not from the people who can choose not to listen and aren't obliged to entertain you.

[Ellipsis]

Perhaps they should have called it the Toby Young Appreciation Society. But they didn't ...

[naomi24]

Ellipsis, If this organisation is active in other countries I presume it is guided by individual national laws. I can’t see how else it could operate.

[Untitled]

Douglas Murray would never have joined if it was called that ellipsis! i'm sure he wants his share of the publicity too ;)

[Untitled]

"Some membership benefits are discretionary, such as pro bono legal advice, pro bono media/PR advice, public support and campaigning, and will be conferred at the discretion of the Free Speech Union, depending on the case and the broader interests of the Union."

What an interesting caveat but i think it answers ellipsis' question... they probably would not defend a hypothetical holocaust denier because it would make them look bad. What a surprise...

[Khandro]

A few more than T. Young involved;

https://freespeechunion.org/about/who-we-are/

[THECORBYLOON]

They would defend only some free speech then?

[naomi24]

//What makes the criticism "valid", objectively? Clearly it depends on the topic.//

Not necessarily. J K Rowling was recently severely vilified for saying that ‘people who menstruate’ are called ‘women’. She’s absolutely right - they are. That is a valid criticism of those who use the phrase - and demand that everyone else uses the phrase - ‘people who menstruate’ in order to avoid offending men who imagine they are women and choose to self-identify as such. I think that is the sort of nonsense this organisation objects to.

[sevenOP]

pixie @ 12:16 Thu... how about we call it 'free, legal speech' ?

[Untitled]

naomi if that's true then how can a free speech union object to the things that other people say? it is not called the "anti-woke union" after all but that might be a more honest name

[Paigntonian]

We do have a law regarding inciting racial hatred, which should apply to anti-semitism. No-one is saying that people can say anything.

[Ellipsis]

For the record, Holocaust denial is not in and of itself a crime in England and Wales:

https://lawandreligionuk.com/2019/02/15/is-holocaust-denial-a-crime-in-england-and-wales-no-but-see-r-v-chabloz/