R.I.P. free speech on campus

Labour’s dumping the most important part of our university free speech law

MATT GOODWIN

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I believe Keir Starmer and his Labour government have declared war on free speech and free expression in this country.

Just look at all they’ve done since coming to power.

They’ve thrown people in jail for writing, usually in the privacy of their own homes, unfashionable and sometimes offensive views.

They’ve made it clear they want to expand Orwellian ‘non-crime hate incidents’, which are used to chill free speech and clampdown on alternative viewpoints.

They’ve adopted a very broad and a very flawed definition of ‘Islamophobia’, which I suspect will not only be used to shut down criticism of Islam and cultural practices within (Labour-voting) Muslim communities but which also specifically mentions the rape gangs as an example of this so-called ‘Islamophobia’.

They’ve harboured politicians like Dawn Butler, who have openly called for alternative media, such as GB News, to be shut down.

They’ve derided and dismissed millions of ordinary people as ‘far right’, as part of a wider attempt to discredit entirely legitimate views, such as wanting to end mass uncontrolled immigration or hold a national inquiry into the rape gangs.

They’ve complained about ‘foreign interference’ in elections while simultaneously watching Labour-aligned activists from a research centre established by Keir Starmer’s Chief of Staff meet and plot with their counterparts in America how to —and I quote directly— “kill” Elon Musk’s Twitter/X platform, which Labour activists clearly view as providing space for views they simply disagrees with.

Their new ‘workers rights charter’, equalities watchdogs have warned this week (which were themselves established by Tony Blair’s Labour governments) could result in people having their conversations about contentious topics, such as questioning transgender rights or the rape gangs, shut down because they make workers feel “harassed” at the workplace and could result in them suing their employer.

And now, on top of all of that, this week we read that Keir Starmer’s hapless Labour government is quickly moving to dramatically water down a crucial law that is designed to protect free speech in our universities, which I helped create.

As some of you will remember, for several years now I’ve been making the argument that our universities, like many other public institutions, are eroding free speech.

This isn’t just my personal opinion; it’s backed up by lots of evidence.

As I argue in a new book, released next month, instead of protecting and promoting free speech and free expression on campus, too many of our universities have been hijacked by a stifling cancel culture and deeply oppressive woke ideology, forcing students to ‘self-censor’ on campus and dissenting academics to be shunned or sacked.

Which is why, two years ago, I helped design and deliver something called the Higher Education (Free Speech) Act, which would actively protect and promote free speech on campus by creating a legal duty on universities to do just this while also creating a mechanism whereby they could be fined if they fail to uphold these things.

I no longer believe, in short, that our public institutions can be relied upon to reform themselves. We now need to intervene to level the playing field.

But when Labour came to power, back in July, it soon showed its true colours.

One of the very first things Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s woeful Education Secretary, did was move to scrap this free speech law entirely.

It was only when the Free Speech Union started to take legal action and hundreds of academics, including me, revolted against Labour’s authoritarian turn that Phillipson and Labour started to backtrack from their naked authoritarianism.

But while Labour is now publicly claiming that it is bringing the law back, this isn’t entirely true. What Labour is doing, more accurately, is watering it down.

As sources told newspapers this week, while Labour look set to keep part of the law it is going to remove the crucial part that would allow academics to seek damages from their university if they have their free speech and academic freedom undermined.

Here’s what The Times says:

“The original free speech act would have introduced a “statutory tort”, allowing civil claims for damages against universities or student unions, leaving institutions liable to being sued by aggrieved parties who claimed their free speech had been blocked, and also facing vexatious complaints … The government has also ditched part of the act that would have encompassed student unions … In other words, they are making the free speech law toothless.”

If universities and their rapidly growing army of authoritarian bureaucrats —almost all of whom are committed to the highly political ‘Diversity, Equality and Inclusion’ agenda— no longer have to fear the consequences of what might happen if they erode free speech and academic freedom then they will simply carry on with their woke agenda, regardless, while our students will not be exposed to the kind of free speech and rigorous debate that is essential to developing well-rounded, critical minds.

For this law to have teeth, for this law to actually bring about the kind of culture change that we desperately need on campus, then it must have an in-built mechanism that the university class will genuinely fear.

But by removing this, Keir Starmer and his authoritarian Labour government are simply keeping our universities, academics, and students in the broken status-quo.

A status-quo where universities are swinging ever more strongly to the political left.

Academics and students are being forced to go along with a stifling groupthink while self-censoring on campus.

Bureaucrats are using their growing power to impose a suffocating woke orthodoxy in top down fashion on everybody else.

And a surrounding, taxpayer-funded system of higher education is incubating and entrenching left-wing madrassas rather than institutions that are genuinely committed to things our universities used to and still should prioritise —the pursuit of truth, reason, scientific knowledge through free speech and good faith debate.

By watering this bill down, by taking the sting out of its tail, Labour is once again showing us all that it really does not value free speech and free expression at all.

Matt’s new book, BAD EDUCATION: WHY OUR UNIVERSITIES ARE BROKEN AND HOW TO FIX THEM, will be published on February 6th.

---

This article (R.I.P. free speech on campus) was created and published by Matt Goodwin and is republished here under “Fair Use”

*****

UK Labour MP Openly Suggests Banning Social Media Platforms Over Non-Compliance with Censorship Laws

DIDI RANKOVIC

Politicians from the UK’s ruling Labour party are starting to openly “out” the country’s Online Safety Act for the sweeping censorship law that its opponents have all along been warning it is.

The extreme case of using the law to completely ban social media platforms in the UK is now being promoted as a possibility by Labour MP Lola McEvoy.

“If these big platforms that have huge users don’t comply with the Online Safety Act, then they have no right to be accessed in this country,” the MP said while appearing on a podcast, adding, “So I think that’s what the law’s about.”

The masks are coming off, prompted by the latest clash between the government and PM Keir Starmer in particular and X owner Elon Musk – who criticized their role in a historical child sex exploitation scandal in the UK.

In addition to saying that failure to comply with the law could result in the platforms getting banned, McEvoy suggested that “unelected citizens from other countries” should not be allowed to criticize UK’s government – she justified this by saying the criticism of Minister for Safeguarding Jess Phillips created “a very dangerous situation,” equating it to “bullying and harassment.”

McEvoy even made a point of public figures needing to be even more aggressively protected through censorship – effectively from whatever the government backing those figures decides to pack into the vague categories such as “bullying” and “harassment,” and in that way deal with critical, including legitimate speech.

And, where would any controversial call to step up online censorship be, without getting served to the public as a way to above all – protect children?

So in addition to blanket bans on accessing apps and platforms for essentially political reasons, China-style, McEvoy recalled that the Online Safety Act also contains the threat of massive fines in case the social media companies fail to comply with what she referred to as “very strict age verification” requirements.

McEvoy spoke about regulator Ofcom’s powers, which she described as “really significant” in enforcing the fines under the law that is being gradually implemented.

And as that is happening, this MP wants the Online Safety Act to be “strengthened” where it concerns the focus on things it treats as harmful to children, such as access to illegal content or pornography.

Source: Reclaim the Net

Featured image: thetab.com

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.