Should universities be allowed to curb free speech? – Stuff.co.nz

OPINION:ACT leader David Seymour has proposed a new law to force universities to allow freedom of expression on campus.

It follows Massey University refusing permission for Don Brash to speak at the Manawat campus last year and this year a feminist with controversial views about transgender women, which have seen her banned from Twitter.

Seymour's bill says universities could have their funding revoked if they stop events or speakers.

Massey University has a code of practice for external speakers which allows it to impose conditions on an event or refuse the event if it believes it may cause "physical, reputational and mental harm".

It seems a debate about the merits of allowing complete intellectual freedom to say whatever you want, versus drawing lines to prevent the worst excesses of charlatans, liars and spin doctors. With the devil being in the detail of what should or shouldn't be allowed.

For instance should government funded universities be allowed to abandon science and fact and push religious theories with no valid foundation? Do you think people should be able to incite hatred and violence against certain ethnic or religious groups? What about those who knowingly promote debunked nonsense specifically to spread disinformation and muddy debate so they can manipulate people?

So where to do you stand on this?

An MP from each side of the house gives their views.

Stuart SmithNational MPKaikura

RICKY WILSON/STUFF

Kaikoura MP Stuart Smith

Freedom of speech is an essential building block to any functioning democracy.

Not only does it allow people to convey their views but also for people to hear other's speak.

READ MORE:* Universities get a lesson in democratic freedom* The delicate balance of free speech v hate speech* Liberal Left a howling contradiction* Massey University bans Don Brash from speaking

The exchanging and contesting of ideas can create change and allow for society to progress. Recent news of universities cancelling or preventing certain people from speaking on their campuses is concerning given our strong need to protect free speech.

People should be free toexpress their ideas, even if those ideas are unpopular, unconventional, or even wrong.

Being open to debate allows sunshine on the arguments so that we can make our own decisions. A person may say things that make people uncomfortable or be controversial, but in a free society, ideas that people may disagree with should be discussed and debated rather than censored.

Freedom of speech in a democracy means having to tolerate the expression of diverse views. It also works both ways people are entitled to voice their views and others are entitled to criticise those views.

Today however, it seems people prefer to attack the controversial views of others they don't agree with rather than engaging and challenging their ideas through robust debate.

Even universities, who are tasked with the development and preparation of the minds of our future workforce, are preventing certain people speaking on their campuses for fear of the mental harm or negative media coverage these speakers may cause.

While universities are entitled to protect their private interests, they should be upholding their main values of advancing knowledge through freedom of thought, debate and scientific rigour.

There will always be people who offend others. Students shouldn't necessarily be protected from these people but rather exposed to them to challenge their ideas and allow them to develop personally.

However with free speech comes responsibility. As such, there are some things that are never acceptable in our society. We already have laws in place to protect people from expression that violates the law, falsely defames a specific individual or constitutes a genuine threat or harassment.

If we were to change these laws then it cannot be a rushed process as we need to get it right and ensure all potential consequences of such laws that may impact our right to free speech are considered.

PriyancaRadhakrishnanLabour List MP based in Maungakiekie

HAGEN HOPKINS/GETTY IMAGES

Labour MP Priyanca Radhakrishnan

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA). However, freedom of speech is subject to limits.

Freedom of speech is not speech free from consequences.

For example, according to the Human Rights Act, it is unlawful for anyone to publish or distribute threatening, abusive or insulting words likely to excite hostility or bring into contempt any group of persons on the ground of the colour, race or their ethnic origins.

Lauren Southern and Stefan Molineux were granted visas to visit New Zealand and speak. That was because they met the requirements set by Immigration New Zealand.

However, it was made very clear that their race baiting and misogyny were not welcome here. I'm proud of the response of Auckland Live and Gabrielle Mullins who refused to provide a platform for hate speech in Aotearoa because those sorts of view cause harm.

Universities have an important role as the critic and conscience of our society. They are also responsible for the health and safety of students and staff.

Universities are independent and that means they can and should perform their role without political interference. That means universities must decide when specific views threaten the wellbeing of people in their campus communities.

Massey University's decision to refuse permission for Don Brash to speak at the Manawat campus may not have been the decision I would have made. However, the university rightly had the autonomy to make that decision.

ROSS GIBLIN/STUFF

ACT's David Seymour.

As Education Minister Chris Hipkins said in response to this, universities should have a very high threshold for free speech and robust debate. However, to threaten the university's funding would be an infringement of its autonomy.

This government has always supported free speech, even when we haven't agreed with the things people were saying. Allowing speech that is divisive is not an endorsement of the content of such speech, but an acknowledgement of their right for people to hold different opinions.

We recognise that sometimes freedom of expression can pose some serious risks, so we will not stop universities from being able to judge for themselves whether on the odd occasion that risk is too great.

Ideally, I would like us to be a society where we're free to air our views but refrain from speech that is likely to incite hate. Ultimately, each of us has the power to stand up and have our voices heard when we hear something we disagree with or opinions that are likely to provoke hate and violence.

Go here to see the original:
Should universities be allowed to curb free speech? - Stuff.co.nz