14 Jun 2018 | Events
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
What is hate speech? What is behind the rise of hate-speech legislation and codes? Are some words and ideas just too hateful for public life? Is policing hate speech the best way to protect equality and freedom — or is free speech, more speech, the answer?
Join Index on Censorship, LSE Law, LSE Human Rights and spiked for this free panel, Q&A and book signing, to mark the publication of Nadine Strossen’s new book.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_custom_heading text=”Speakers” font_container=”tag:h3|text_align:left” use_theme_fonts=”yes”][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”100809″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”100810″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”100808″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/4″][vc_single_image image=”100807″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes”][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]
SPEAKERS:
Nadine Strossen is the author of numerous books. Her latest, HATE: Why We Should Resist it With Free Speech, Not Censorship, is out now. Nadine was the first woman national president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), serving from 1991 to 2008. She is professor of constitutional law at the New York Law School and is a frequent speaker on constitutional and civil-liberties issues.
Jodie Ginsberg is the head of UK-based freedom of expression organisation Index on Censorship. A former foreign correspondent and business journalist, Jodie worked for more than a decade for the Reuters news agency and was Reuters’ London Bureau chief. She has also worked as head of communications for Camfed, an international charity, and as an editor at Chime for Change. Follow her on Twitter: @jodieginsberg
Joanna Williams is an author, academic and the associate editor of the online magazine spiked. Her latest book is Women Versus Feminism: Why We All Need Liberating from the Gender Wars. Joanna taught in schools, and further and higher education, for over 20 years, most recently as director of the University of Kent’s Centre for the Study of Higher Education. She writes regularly for numerous other publications. Follow her on Twitter: @jowilliams293
CHAIR: Peter Ramsay is professor of law at LSE. His research interests include: the theoretical connections between criminal law, democracy and civil liberty; the protection of security interests by criminal law; the construction of the vulnerable legal subject. See more here.
This is a free panel and Q&A, which will be followed by a book signing with Nadine Strossen.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
When: Monday 2 July 2018, 18:30 – 20:00 BST
Where: London School of Economics, New Academic Building, Alumni theatre, Houghton Street, WC2A 2AE (Directions)
Tickets: Free. Registration required via Eventbrite.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
12 Jun 2018 | News and features, Press Releases
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”100734″ img_size=”full”][vc_column_text]Index on Censorship has named writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips as its new chair. Phillips succeeds journalist David Aaronovitch whose five-year term ends in September.
Phillips is a writer and television producer. He currently works between the US and the UK, serving as chairman of New York-based think-tank, the Center for Talent Innovation and as president of the council of the John Lewis Partnership. A former chair of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission, Phillips is currently writing a prequel to his successful book Windrush.
“Trevor believes passionately in argument, debate and free expression. He’s not afraid of expressing a view and he’s not afraid of others expressing theirs. He’s a great fit for Index,” said current chair David Aaronovitch.
Previous chairs of Index include the broadcasters Anna Ford and Jonathan Dimbleby.
In the past five years, Aaronovitch has played an active role in debates on the value of free expression, especially in the wake of events such as Charlie Hebdo, and overseen the recruitment of a new chief executive, former Reuters London Bureau Chief Jodie Ginsberg. During his tenure, the organisation has transformed its annual Freedom of Expression Awards into a year-long fellowship programme, and introduced new flagship projects, including training for UK arts organisations on the law and free speech and a European media freedom monitoring project.
“David brought calm humour and good sense to the board and organisation at a time filled with difficult attacks on both the concept of free expression and on those who dare to exercise their precious rights,” board member David Schlesinger said.
Phillips will take over as chair in September as the organisation prepares to increase its work both in the United States and in coverage of issues of censorship online.
“At a time when the world is beset by conflict, and in many cases repression, the case for diversity of voices globally could not be plainer,” said Phillips. “The advent of new technologies has made it more possible for those voices to be heard; but both governments and non-state actors have redoubled their efforts to silence their opponents.”
He added: “For many, the last freedom that will be left is the ability to tell the truth as they see it. Courageous journalists, writers and campaigners are the front line troops in the battle to protect our understanding and insight of what is taking place; and all too many are paying the price in the loss of their own freedoms, and of their own lives. Those of us who enjoy freedom can do more than wring our hands – we can take practical steps to support those who face the threat of being silenced.”
“Index is the premier organisation backing the voices standing up for free expression, and I feel privileged to be asked to succeed my friend David Aaronovitch as chair, and to support the work of Index’s outstanding team.”
For more information, please contact [email protected][/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]About Trevor Phillips
Born in London in 1953, Trevor Phillips was educated in London and in Georgetown, Guyana, and studied chemistry at Imperial College London. Between 1978 and 1980, he was president of The National Union of Students.
He joined London Weekend Television as a researcher, rising to become Head of Current Affairs, before leaving to found Pepper Productions. He has been a Vice-President of the Royal Television Society since 2000. His most recent films include Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True and Has Political Correctness Gone Mad?.
Trevor retains an active interest in the arts and music and is a board member of the Barbican Arts Centre and of Headlong Theatre. His other voluntary activities include serving as a board member of the Social Mobility Foundation, and of the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion. He chairs the WEA, a charity providing over 150,000 hours of adult education each year.
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]About Index
Index on Censorship is a UK-based nonprofit that campaigns against censorship and promotes free expression worldwide. Founded in 1972, Index has published some of the world’s leading writers and artists in its award-winning quarterly magazine, including Nadine Gordimer, Mario Vargas Llosa, Samuel Beckett and Kurt Vonnegut. Index promotes debate, monitors threats to free speech and supports individuals through its annual awards and fellowship program.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1528726171148-fc3ce605-f7a7-5″][/vc_column][/vc_row]
16 May 2018 | Campaigns -- Featured, Statements
The West Yorkshire Police force do not know their law.
Malicious Communications Act 1988 has no provision whatsoever for “insulting or abusive” messages.
Individuals can be prosecuted for sending messages that are “grossly offensive” or for messages that the sender knows to be false but sends anyway for the purpose of causing annoyance.
“This police force needs to develop a sense of humour and pursue actual crime rather than trying to use the law to cover their own embarrassment. These comments by the West Yorkshire Police again show how problematic this section of law is in dealing with social media and it is time to see the ‘grossly offensive’ element scrapped,” Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship, said.

15 May 2018 | Academic Freedom, News and features
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_single_image image=”100370″ img_size=”full” add_caption=”yes” alignment=”center”][vc_column_text]Written by: Che Applewhaite, Samantha Chambers, Claire Kopsky and Sarah Wu
Survivors of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, have been making headlines lately with their calls for more American students to help them change the country’s gun laws. Their right to protest and petition politicians is enshrined in their right to free expression under the First Amendment.
It is clear that the US student body — whether at high school or college — is conflicted over the issue of free expression and what is or isn’t acceptable speech. While some recent surveys and studies show attitudes to be generally supportive of freedom of expression as an important right, in practice this isn’t always the case.
At this vital moment, students around the USA should see why free speech is so vital on their campuses, whether high school or university and what they have to lose if they won’t fight for it.
“Free speech must apply to everyone — even those whose views we find objectionable — or it applies to no one,” says Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of Index on Censorship. “Only by being able to express themselves freely and honestly, and also being exposed to as wide a range of viewpoints as possible can these get the most out of their education.”
In the past, the usefulness of free speech as part of such a campaign was much less in dispute. Martin Luther King Jr’s speeches and the student movements of the 1960s, which together changed a generation, relied on this very freedom. A lot of demonstrations today seem more geared towards the suppression of speech, such as those targeting conservative and alt-right voices like Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley and Richard Spencer at Michigan State University.
Students from four US universities weigh in on the issue and tell Index what is fair game on campus and what isn’t.
(Not) talking about race
The University of Missouri, colloquially known as a Mizzou and described as a “liberal student body in a red state”, is no stranger to racial tension. In 2015 the school saw protests by its football team and a graduate student go on hunger strike as part of a campaign to have the school’s president resign after mishandling racial issues on campus. This was followed by a drop in freshman enrollment and funding to the school.
Evan Lachnit, who studies journalism and sports at Mizzou, says that there are certain topics that, in the current political climate, are often too hot to touch. “As it relates to history, if there is one subject everyone appears to walk-on eggshells around, it would be slavery, one of, if not the largest, scars in American history,” he says. “It’s something many will just avoid altogether.”
The issue of “hate speech” — including speech considered to be insulting to a particular race — at Mizzou prompted the University of Missouri Police Department issued a campus-wide email asking “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech” to call them “immediately”. The police admit that “cases of hateful and hurtful speech are not crimes”, leaving many to wonder why they feel this is an issue the force should be concerned with.
“There is no question that a great deal of ‘hateful and/or hurtful speech’ is protected by the First Amendment, and that punishing students whose speech is determined to meet such a troublingly vague and subjective standard will violate students’ constitutional rights,” Fire, an organisation that campaigns for individual rights in higher education, said in a letter to the school’s chancellor, R. Bowen Loftin. “It is crucial that students be able to carry out such debates without fear that giving offence will result in being reported to the police and referred for discipline by the university.”
Sophie Kissinger, a senior studying history at Harvard University, claims that the ways in which her subject was taught in the past limits knowledge of American slavery today. Recently gifted a 1926 Harvard syllabus that outlines the core requirements for a history student at the time, she notices the document’s “neglect of the oppressed”. “These narratives largely serve to perpetuate a system of erasure, reinforcing colonial ideologies and degrading the lives of oppressed peoples,” she says. “This erasure is all around us today: only 8% of high school senior can identify slavery as the central cause of the Civil War and most don’t know an amendment to the US Constitution formally ended slavery”.
Over at Villanova University, Emily Bouley, a junior studying business and psychology, says that privilege can be tricky to discuss because “everyone has different definitions of what privileged means”.
One topic in particular that’s likely to receive backlash, Bouley says, is affirmative action, those measures that are intended to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination. “One time my professor was really passionate about racism against white males in job selection since there are more programs aimed towards diversity now than ever before, which is great, but sometimes candidates will get chosen because they are of a minority,” Bouley says. “Often this isn’t the case, but I felt so uncomfortable sharing my opinion because yes it happens and doesn’t support equality but it’s very hard to argue without sounding racist.”
Thanksgiving rule on campus: no politics
Located in the fifth most liberal city in America as ranked by Forbes, Boston University students are aware of the politically left-leaning environment they live in. But as with the family dinner table at Thanksgiving, heated conversation about politics is discouraged on campus.
According to the school’s policies, students must not “impose” offensive or upsetting views on others. Nicole Hoey, a junior studying journalism and English at the school, says the overwhelming liberal majority, though welcoming of opposing ideas, has a tendency to silence conservative voices through the sheer volume of liberal students. “As a journalist, free speech is so important,” Hoey says. “And for the most part, BU does a good job at promoting free speech on campus.”
“But I think people who voted for Trump would feel more frightened to speak their minds because we’re so liberal,” Hoey adds. “I think the only time they would feel safe is if they’re in College Republicans”.
This is probably why, following the 2016 election and the election of Donald Trump as president, BU College Republicans have seen an increase in attendance.
International studies major at the University of San Francisco Adule Dajani notes that “professors make their political views known pretty discreetly”. As a left-leaning school in a democratic state, Dajani says that USF professors try to remain unbiased by “talking about both the pros and cons of an issue”. However, she finds the conduct of the classroom facilitated by professors to be the main silencer for those in the minority side on any debate. “I can see how someone would feel too uncomfortable to speak up because the students are hotheads,” she says.
Candace Korasick, a professor at the school’s department of sociology at Mizzou, says her classes often tackle difficult issues, but there are some too controversial to discuss. “There are topics that I once would have broached in a class that I, not avoid, but now don’t initiate. And if students initiate them, I feel as if I’m tiptoeing through a minefield,” Korasick explains. “The two topics that I’d rather avoid are abortion and the Confederate flag. It is difficult to have a conversation with more than one or two students at a time on issues like that.”
Journalism and business student Nina Ruhe says topics like race, sexual assault and political beliefs are ones professors handle with “delicacy” on a surface level. For her, that’s a shame because it means she’s not getting any depth of knowledge on these topics as part of her education.
“While doing this allows the educators to say they’ve covered the issues and say that they’ve taken part in these important discussions, they also don’t go deep enough as to letting there be any real form of discussion,” Ruhe says. “Unfortunately, when I have heard of educators that have attempted to go into in-depth conversations about these topics, they are shut down by complaints from parents or superiors and are forced to stop.”
The right to freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest are crucial in a democracy – and crucial to any success the students of Parkland may have in changing America’s gun laws. They must be in no doubt that it a right that is on their side.
Later this year Index on Censorship will release a report on the freedom of speech on campus[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_basic_grid post_type=”post” max_items=”12″ style=”load-more” items_per_page=”4″ element_width=”6″ grid_id=”vc_gid:1526388582695-a56b5824-ce86-7″ taxonomies=”8843″][/vc_column][/vc_row]