Latest news with #FreedomOfSpeech
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
English universities now have a duty to uphold freedom of speech – here's how it might affect students' sense of belonging
The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, which comes into force on August 1 2025, means universities in England now have a new duty to uphold 'robust' strategies to ensure freedom of speech on campus. To support universities in navigating the boundaries of lawful and unlawful speech, universities regulator the Office for Students appointed its first director for freedom of speech and academic freedom in 2023. Arif Ahmed, who is also a professor of philosophy at the University of Cambridge, has reportedly said that coming across views students might find offensive is part of a university education. It's possible, though, that feeling offended comes up against the important concept of 'belonging' at university. In the context of higher education, belonging is often defined as feeling at home, included and valued. It is linked to more students staying in their courses, having enhanced wellbeing, and being able to learn well at university. But feeling offended and feeling you belong at university don't have to be contradictory. Some of our research has found that belonging can also mean being able to challenge the dominant culture at a university, which may exclude students who don't fit a particular mould. Some students explained that they proactively resist the prevalent image of the 'typical' student. For example, in highly selective universities, students are often extremely competitive and industrious with a tendency to overwork. But this culture may not align with the work-life balance prioritised by some students. This form of 'positive not-belonging' often takes the form of friendship groups and communities that cultivate an alternative kind of belonging. These groups may well enable greater freedom of self-expression, without fear of being judged or feeling pressured to conform to pre-existing academic cultures. While some students are able to carve out these collective and alternative communities for belonging, many others feel their presence and sense of belonging is conditional – especially minority ethnic students. Clearer advocacy for free speech might help these students feel more comfortable speaking up and building a stronger sense of belonging. We must not forget that the idea of belonging carries power dynamics, and often has implications for what is perceived as up for debate – and what is not. Existing free speech What's more, the views of students suggest that free speech is already part of their experience at university. In 2023, the Office for Students added a question about freedom of expression to the annual National Student Survey, which gathers final-year undergraduates' opinions on their higher education experience. The question, added for students at English universities only, asked how 'free' students felt to express their ideas, opinions and beliefs. The results showed that 86% did feel they had this freedom. This has remained stable in the latest survey, with a slight increase to just over 88% in the 2025 results. The Office for Students also commissioned YouGov to poll research and teaching staff at English universities about their perceptions of free speech in higher education in 2024. Some positive results mirrored the student data. For example, 89% of academics reported that they are confident they understand what free speech means in higher education. But the polling also found that 21% did not feel free to discuss controversial topics in their teaching. This lack of perceived freedom of expression does not only have a negative impact on staff. It is widely understood that a key purpose of higher education is to nurture students' independent thinking and self-awareness. A key step toward this goal is not to be afraid of engaging in difficult conversations, including asking questions. However, this does not happen automatically. Universities need to provide clear scaffolding, guidance and practical steps to protect freedom of speech. It is also important to normalise and promote conversations about topics such as cultural differences and intercultural competence, which refers to the ability to interact with people from different cultural backgrounds effectively and appropriately. If addressed, these discussions can help to foster inclusion, and promote diversity of thought and expression. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Telegraph
17-07-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Of course MPs could have spoken out about the Afghan leak
'Parliamentary privilege' is the collection of rights enjoyed by MPs and peers which allow them to carry out their role as legislators and scrutineers of government. One of the most important aspects of privilege is freedom of speech: simply put, MPs cannot face legal action as a result of anything they say as part of parliamentary proceedings. This protection stems from the Bill of Rights 1688, one of the foundational texts of Britain's constitutional arrangements. Article IX says: 'That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.' This is a broad protection, and it is absolute. Yet Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, and former home secretary Suella Braverman seem to be saying that they opposed the super-injunction which kept a two-year veil of secrecy over the Ministry of Defence's recently revealed Afghan data loss. They would have spoken out against it, but could have been prosecuted, so Jenrick says, under the Official Secrets Act 1989. It is hard to see how this can be true. So long as they had expressed their concerns as part of 'proceedings in Parliament', for example in the chamber of the House of Commons, they would have been protected by parliamentary privilege. In this respect, there is nothing 'special' about the Official Secrets Act, nothing within the legislation which gives it a particular status which overrides privilege. A select committee concluded in 1939 that Duncan Sandys, the young Conservative Member for Norwood, would not have been liable under the Official Secrets Act for disclosing classified information he had received about anti-aircraft weapons if he had done so in a parliamentary setting (the 'Sandys case'). Privilege would have protected him from prosecution. This position was upheld by the Committee of Privileges in 1987, and by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in 1999, which concluded 'We recommend no action should be taken to limit freedom of speech in respect of breaches of the Official Secrets Acts in the course of proceedings in Parliament'. In evidence to the joint committee, the then-attorney general, John Morris, supplied a memorandum to which he attached a note written by his predecessor, Sir Donald Somervell, in 1939 in relation to the Sandys case. 'I would respectfully agree with his conclusion… that a statement by a Member in the course of debate or proceedings in Parliament, which would otherwise amount to an unlawful disclosure under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 and 1920, could not be made the subject of proceedings in the courts. The same must be true… for the Official Secrets Act 1989.' The existence of a super-injunction does not affect the situation either. In 2011, the Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming violated a super-injunction which footballer Ryan Giggs had been granted to conceal an extra-marital affair with his brother's wife. Questioning the then-Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, on privacy injunctions, Hemming said: 'With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter, it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all…' The Speaker, John Bercow, reminded him that the question was on the principle of these instruments, but Hemming faced no legal or disciplinary sanction – he was protected by parliamentary privilege. The principle is very clear and well-established: MPs cannot be subject to civil or criminal proceedings on the basis of what they say in Parliament. That is what Article IX is for. If Jenrick or Braverman have received contrary advice, we need to know that, because it would strike at a basic constitutional principle. If they have not, they should explain why they are mistakenly claiming that they were effectively gagged.
Fox News
22-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Bruce Springsteen releases EP featuring anti-Trump rants from UK concert
Singer-songwriter Bruce Springsteen continued his criticism of President Donald Trump Wednesday by releasing a six-track digital extended play (EP) that included his political rants while performing in Manchester, United Kingdom, last week. "The Boss" included four songs on the 31-minute EP, "Land of Hope & Dreams." The songs included "Land of Hope and Dreams," "Long Walk Home," "My City of Ruins" and "Chimes of Freedom." All four songs were recorded live May 14, 2025, when Springsteen publicly lambasted Trump. During his intro to "Land of Hope and Dreams," Springsteen said it was great to be back in Manchester, calling on the "righteous power of art, of music, of rock and roll, in dangerous times." "In my home, the America I love, the America I've written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration," he said. "Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experience to rise with us, raise your voices against authoritarianism and let freedom ring." Springsteen went on another political rant against Trump and the U.S. government before the E Street Band kicked into the song "My City of Ruins." "There's some very weird, strange and dangerous s--- going on out there right now," Springsteen told the British crowd. "In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now. In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction and abandoning the world's poorest children to sickness and death. "This is happening now," he added. "In my country, they're taking sadistic pleasure in the pain that they inflict on loyal American workers. They're rolling back historic civil rights legislation that led to a more just and plural society. They're abandoning our great allies and siding with dictators against those struggling for their freedom." Springsteen also accused the government of defunding American universities that "won't bow down to their ideological demands." "They're removing residents off American streets and, without due process of law, are deporting them to foreign detention centers and prisons," he said. "This is all happening now. A majority of our elected representatives have failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government. They have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American. "The America that I've sung to you about for 50 years is real and, regardless of its faults, is a great country with a great people," Springsteen added. "So, we'll survive this moment." The crowd responded with applause when Springsteen continued to pontificate his stance on the current administration. The comments went viral last week, and Trump responded by slamming Springsteen and calling him "highly overrated" Friday. "I see that Highly Overrated Bruce Springsteen goes to a Foreign Country to speak badly about the President of the United States," Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. "Never liked him, never liked his music, or his Radical Left Politics and, importantly, he's not a talented guy — Just a pushy, obnoxious JERK, who fervently supported Crooked Joe Biden, a mentally incompetent FOOL, and our WORST EVER President, who came close to destroying our Country. "Sleepy Joe didn't have a clue as to what he was doing, but Springsteen is 'dumb as a rock,' and couldn't see what was going on, or could he (which is even worse!)? This dried out 'prune' of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that's just 'standard fare.' Then we'll all see how it goes for him!" Springsteen declared last year that "I'll be casting my vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz" in the presidential election. Harris lost the race to Trump.
