How far should universities restrict freedom of speech?

Should the students be given a discussion or text that might make them angry and a "trigger warning" about "IP space" on campus?

This is an important issue for panelists to participate in the London debate on the ideas held at Conway Hall on September 10th.

Pam Lowe, a senior lecturer at sociology at Aston University, stressed that "Everything is debated in the class, there is nothing prohibited." However, according to her research "She wants to talk about difficult problems in class, but wants to be warned beforehand" she tries to create a "safe space" for them .

For example, in Islamic society, "men and women often sit on the other side of the room even if there is no sign that they are doing this, I should say they have to confuse them ? "

At the same time, writer and activist Beatrix Campbell served as a lecturer in the philosophy department of the University of East Anglia (and a candidate for a green party in the last election). The wrong way of thinking was tormented by violent attacks. "Philosophical consideration on transgender problem"

Feminist kinematic scholar Julia Vindell was also "punished" by the No-platform ban on the National University of Singapore. Mr. Campbell said that such a review could harm the "feminist's goal of challenging all gender issues".

It also included a ban on the "Comedy" comedian's Dapper Laughs by Cardiff University and the feminist comedian Kate Smurthwaite of the London University Goldsmiths.

Brendan O'Neill, editor of the Spiked Online magazine, is extremely free to express (and extends to the right to issue pedophilia fantasy).

"If you agree with 'no platform policy', you already admit that principle," he said. Concerns about "Islamic phobia" can easily lead to "prevalence of law ethics".

"We are talking about freedom of speech here," Mr. O'Neil challenged other team members. "Do you acknowledge the right for the football club to use the word" minger "to issue flyers? He cried in the courtroom. "We support freedom of speech, but I will not support you!"

The university's campus is becoming a fighting place between the right to freedom of expression and the right not to get angry. According to the 2017 free speech college ranking, 94% of British higher education institutions restrict freedom of speech on campus, 63.5% of which are severely restricted. What is more worrisome is that the core of the university is to share ideas, explore, and challenge the most important things. Silence for them will never be as effective as challenging them when people have views that are considered aggressive from others in society. You can expose the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of this belief when you make them explain themselves and make them work truly through the complexity of the belief they have.

Many people think that universities should restrict freedom of speech in their school days. The right to freedom of expression is inseparable. Limiting the remarks of groups and individuals endanger the rights of all because the same laws or regulations used to silence paranoia could be used to silence others There is a possibility. When a person is denied this right, everyone is rejected. Rather than restricting the rights given to us by the first amendment, why do not we use this freedom? Almost all universities have a mission to promote learning through open discussion and learning and inspiration. You should apply the voice code to the campus and have the right to hear all the views, this is not a viable way. This will not only reduce open discussions, but also will train tomorrow's leaders and prevent their comments from being accepted. In doing so, the United States is likely to approach freedom of speech completely banned.

Freedom of speech and theory behind it are also affected. According to the New York Times article, most Democratic and Republican students say freedom of speech should be restricted if they intentionally become unpleasant words or groups. The theory argues that everyone has an equal voice and those who share minor negative / disliked speech (cards, white superiorists) are their right to make a possible comment. Since we recognize that "freedom of speech" is condemned in some cases of "freedom of hatred", many millenniums clearly disagree.