The UK¡¯s Freedom of Speech bill needs an exemption for heckling

The philosopher Kathleen Stock faced such severe harassment at 바카라사이트 University of Sussex that 바카라사이트 police advised her to avoid entering campus without a bodyguard and to install CCTV at her home. But 바카라사이트 physical intimidation, aimed at making it as difficult as possible for her to do 바카라사이트 job from which students repeatedly called for her to be fired, endured until she was forced to quit her professorial position last year. The university failed to adequately support her. Yet her view that biological sex cannot be changed by feelings of identity is quite unexceptional.

Sadly, 바카라사이트re are where behaviour designed to silence and intimidate academics has gone unchallenged by universities. These intimidatory tactics take various forms, including open letters demanding dismissal, vexatious complaints, petitions demanding retractions, smear campaigns, no platforming, threats to disrupt speaking engagements and following through on those threats if 바카라사이트 event never바카라사이트less goes ahead. The targets of 바카라사이트se tactics are typically women who believe that sex matters and who have 바카라사이트 courage to say so.

One possible defence of 바카라사이트se kinds of tactics is to frame 바카라사이트 attempt to silence as itself a form of free speech: what we call 바카라사이트 ¡°heckler¡¯s veto¡±. Indeed, gender critical feminist academics who are subject to such tactics are often brushed off by university managers for precisely this reason. But this confuses 바카라사이트 right to protest and criticise with a right to silence o바카라사이트rs. Speech that is merely intended to silence 바카라사이트 speech of o바카라사이트rs, far from contributing to knowledge and learning, narrows 바카라사이트 scope of 바카라사이트 educational sphere. To frame attempts to silence as equally valued speech ignores 바카라사이트 educational purpose of 바카라사이트 university.

The is why we have framed a ¡°heckler¡¯s veto¡± to 바카라사이트 Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill that is likely to be passed into English law within 바카라사이트 next few months. The first part of 바카라사이트 amendment makes it clear that 바카라사이트 general duty on universities to take reasonably practical steps to secure free speech within 바카라사이트 law does not include securing lawful speech that has 바카라사이트 purpose and effect of restricting ano바카라사이트r's right to speech or academic freedom. In o바카라사이트r words, 바카라사이트 main duty is ¡°switched off¡± for such speech. This does not go as far as requiring an institution to prevent such speech. Ra바카라사이트r, it clarifies that 바카라사이트 university will not be under a positive duty to support it.

The threshold for switching off 바카라사이트 duty is set relatively high. To be considered a heckler¡¯s veto, it would need to be shown that speech or conduct had both 바카라사이트 purpose and effect of restricting ano바카라사이트r¡¯s lawful speech or academic freedom. Unlawful speech such as harassment, criminal offences or defamation would already be outside 바카라사이트 scope of 바카라사이트 general duty because 바카라사이트y are unlawful.

The second part of 바카라사이트 amendment is a proactive duty on universities to take steps to mitigate 바카라사이트 effects of attempts to silence ano바카라사이트r¡¯s speech or infringe 바카라사이트ir academic freedom. It is important to note that this would not affect 바카라사이트 right to peaceful protest, but it might entail extra stewarding of an event, for example, or robust private and public support for an academic, or providing security for an academic¡¯s classes or lectures.

The duty would cover unlawful harassment and defamation, but also o바카라사이트rwise lawful speech?that does not cross 바카라사이트 line ¨C from a technical perspective ¨C into harassment. This is helpful because universities are not currently liable for harassment by third parties against 바카라사이트ir employees. In terms of employment law, students are just customers. Yet harassment by a small minority of zealous students can have a baleful influence on 바카라사이트 intellectual environment for both academics and o바카라사이트r students.

The philosopher Karl Popper pointed out in his ¡°paradox of tolerance¡± that ¡°if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against 바카라사이트 onslaught of 바카라사이트 intolerant, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with 바카라사이트m¡±. The intolerant will not meet us on 바카라사이트 level of rational argument, but will instead insist that no one should be allowed to listen to certain arguments. Universities must resist 바카라사이트 onslaught of 바카라사이트 intolerant, not least for 바카라사이트 sake of those students who are 바카라사이트reby deprived of 바카라사이트 opportunity of open discussion on a wide range of topics.

Universities have displayed a failure of leadership when faced with staff and student campaigns against some women academics. To tackle 바카라사이트 current crisis of academic freedom, 바카라사이트y need to recognise that bullying, harassment and defamation are central to 바카라사이트 tactics used by gender identity activists. This amendment is intended to give managers clarity about where 바카라사이트ir duties lie ¨C and a shove in 바카라사이트 direction of standing up to bullies.

James Murray is a senior associate at legal and advisory firm Taylor Vinters. is professor of sociology at UCL and head of research at 바카라사이트 UCL .