Might spark protests which might spark physical violence
This again. University of Bristol Free Speech Society:
We are saddened to inform you that due to Student Union bureaucracy we have been forced to cancel the invitation we extended to Angelos Sofocleous to be on our panel discussion on free speech. We have given the SU plenty of notice for this event. But they felt it proper to cancel his attendance in the last minute, citing “security concerns”. For context, Angelos is a full time student at Durham University who lives amongst students on campus. We leave it to the public to reach their own conclusions with regards to the SU’s intentions.
In the government’s guidance for students on free speech released last year it states, “Students should not be deterred from organising events due to over-bureaucratic procedures”. Ironically, the first question we intended to put before our panel – ‘is there a problem with free speech on campus?’ – has been answered for us loud and clear.
Our event will still be going ahead with the other panellists and will be open for students as well as to the public. We encourage anyone who cares about free speech to turn up to show their support for the cause. Tickets are free, but mandatory.
We are happy to give statements to the press. Message us on our page.
That “citing ‘security concerns'” is an especially nice touch. What security concerns? The ones about the rumpus we will raise if you don’t cancel the invitation to Sofocleous. We know there will be a fuss because we will create one. Nice little place you got here, would be a shame if you provoked me into smashing it up.
Angelos comments:
I have just been de-platformed by @Bristol_SU from a panel debate on ‘Free speech on campus’ organized by the University of Bristol Free Speech Society due to concerns that “my presence might spark protests which might lead to physical violence”. pic.twitter.com/2U9ChkVFGL
— Angelos Sofocleous (@Sofocleous_A) February 10, 2019
Which, being interpreted, means not so much that his appearance might spark anything, as that people there would see to it that his appearance met with boisterous opposition. If opposition is boisterous enough it can be said to be a security concern, and boom, there’s your pretext for telling this person whose ideas you dislike to stay away.
Sometimes there are people that have such dangerous and hateful things to say that I see no value in letting them speak. Then there are people who have merely unpopular or controversial things to say. Letting them speak is a given. In between there are the people who have things to say that make you grimace in disgust or squirm with discomfort. It’s tempted to ban them, but surely the better thing is to either challenge them if they represent a future danger, or ignore them if they are cranks who would thrive on the attention.
I can’t help but feel that Bristol U (both the institution and the SU) would be better off putting their attention on how to deal with people they perceive as being prepared to resort to violence on campus.
He’s giving a talk in Newcastle in a week or so. The event looks like it might be worth going to, so I might.
The heckler’s veto in full effect.
Well, my school always likes to claim to be on the cutting edge; I guess they’re on the cutting edge on this, too. They used this excuse 10 years ago when the Freethought Society was trying to bring Dan Barker to campus. So they’re on the cutting edge of trendy excuses for curtailing protected speech.
“Sorry, we can’t publish your book for health and safety reasons – the nazis might burn it and that would be a fire hazard”.
And yet we have vast concern about the freeze-peach of empty vessels like Milo. It isn’t Big Bad Censorship to avoid giving space to crackpots and trolls. No geography dept. needs to give lecture space to flat-earthers. Creationists really don’t deserve ‘equal time’ in biology.
So, when confronted with the woman-erasing, or jihadist cells, why do institutions cringe and bow?