This term can be heard, along with No Platforming, as we struggle with a relatively new problem in British society. The question of who should be allowed free speech in a civilised society is very old but we now have a new twist.
Universities, for example, have traditionally represented an ideal where academics of many viewpoints use research and logical argument to compare opposing views and look for an agreed truth. In reality, that sometimes meant one dominant group using various forms of manipulation to keep the opposition quiet or, more significantly, just refusing to allow that the opposing view was academically sound and thus worth engaging with. There is always a dominant view and new, radically different views usually have a hard time being taken seriously, until they in turn become the dominant view a few generations later. However, the ideal exists and many people strive for it.
The mainstream media then reported what comes out of those arguments, usually in simplified form for the general listener/reader.
But suppose the BBC want a debate on climate change. There are many views on how far it may be made-made but most agree it is a serious problem. The BBC might invite one person who argues we need urgent controls then another who says we do not. Is this ‘balance’? Suppose they invited a person who said the world was round then, for balance invited someone who said it was flat. Is that balance? The truth does not always lie midway between any two given points. Sometime a point of view is so obviously wrong it should not be taken seriously. But who decides which ones?
Likewise, in any debate about immigration , some will argue for more controls and others for a different kind of control, but mixed in with the debate will be those who simply use immigration as means of spreading fear and race hate. A few political groups have been banned or fined for such offences. Should they be given equal air time, or refused an audience to avoid giving serious attention to something we should be suppressing?
And, as we increasingly use non-mainstream outlets for our news, is that anyway the most important question? In the BBC it may be a problem that they sometimes try too hard for a spurious ‘balance’. In other outlets, there is no pretence that balance is an issue, only budget, volume and techniques of manipulation.
Democracy and education require a degree of free speech but modern schools and universities have a government led programme, Prevent, to monitor and suppress what they identify as tendencies towards or the spreading of Islamic extremism. This is either a deeply troubling Big Brother moment open to abuse, or a means of securing our national security, or a confusing mixture of both. A lot depends on who is appointed guardians of our safety and how they behave.
Arguing for diversity of view is often a means of complaining that your own view is not allowed a big enough audience, and is traditional. What is new is the use by extreme right wing groups to push an anti-science, creationist, racist, nationalistic, intolerant agenda, using social media and big budget pressure groups in such a way that universities and media outlets have trouble coping with the pressures. Darwin and Einstein may have had trouble getting their views heard at first, but they did not have to contend with rogue billionaires bankrolling Facebook posts. Arguments within a university, spilling out onto media outlets, have some influence. We may wonder if Facebook posts, paid for by secretive ‘research groups’ are starting to have more. Universities have some traditional checks and balances based on the idea that they are a powerful influence. But If Facebook, street rallies and buses with slogans on have more influence, does this mean the rules have to change? And if so, how?