I think freedom of speech helps challenge those social taboos though. It may be taboo to talk about what was done to native Americans, but at least no one will arrest you if you do, and it’s possible to spread awareness of the horrors of that time. I disagree with the law in Germany in France, for example, that makes denying the Holocaust a crime. It’s better that those who hold this view get their ideas openly challenged and proved incorrect. Once you ban talking about something it makes it look like there’s something to hide, and also feeds conspiracy theory idiots. What we have isn’t ideal, but it is improving. We have to remember that freedom of speech is a relatively new concept, and we’re still getting used to it. Religion isn’t the only problem either, as you say, but the environment created by religion makes banning talking about or criticizing certain things normal.

The first three commandments are essentially taboos, as is the Jewish custom of not saying the name of god. Blasphemy laws enshrine taboos into law. There are strong taboos in Israel’s discussion of threats from its neighbors: Never admit that Israel has nukes. Never admit that Israel’s settlements prevent any possibility of a two state solution. Never admit that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is in any way connected to the statements of Arab leaders about Israel.

In the US it’s taboo to admit our genocide against the native Americans, and to admit that the Declaration of Independence was hypocrisy promulgated by a slave-owning nation. There’s a taboo against talking about the inhumanity of the nuclear attacks on Japan and the fire bombing of Dresden. There is a taboo about admitting that our invasion of Iraq was terrorism, and that much of the chaos in the middle east was caused by US and European greedy meddling. Woe to the politician who does not buy into “American exceptionalism”.

So while I oppose blasphemy laws and governmental restrictions on freedom of speech, I think legal impediments are just the tip of the iceberg. Social taboos and peer pressure restrict not only our speech but our thought. Some are religious in nature, but by no means all.

Netball is different – it has seven players, and except for national and international games, is usually played outside. Initially only women played it (and it had nine players then as well) but there are men’s leagues now. It developed from basketball. The ball is slightly lighter and players throw the ball rather than bouncing it, except for bounce passes. There are designated positions, and they are restricted to certain parts of the court. Only two in each team are allowed to shoot baskets. The court is broadly similar to a basketball court, but the shooting circle is a semi-circle and the basket is slightly lower.

I heard about Erik Erickson’s withdrawal of his invitation to Trump over Trump’s remarks. Trump can say what he wants, but he also has to take the consequences. Assuming the conference was organized by a privately funded organisation, they are free to dis-invite him in changes circumstances. It would be different in NZ because pre-election debates are official events, so candidates get to attend whatever they’ve said on the campaign trail.

If the University of Illinois if publicly funded and Salaita spoke in a private capacity, he shouldn’t have been fired imo. However, if it’s a private university, they have the right. The influence of big money in all sorts of places is an issue in the US, which I’m pretty sure you agree with me is a bad thing.

An organisation can have employment conditions about employees bringing it into disrepute, and I don’t have a problem with that as long as it’s up front. In those circumstances if an employee was a member of the KKK and it didn’t affect how he carried out his job or treated his colleagues, and his KKK activities were kept separate, he should keep his job. If something happens to change that, such as making loud and public anti-black, anti-Semitic, or anti-gay statements, he shouldn’t expect to keep his job.

As for the Brandeis/Hirsi Ali situation, I saw that as more hypocritical than a freedom of speech issue. They had the right to dis-invite her as a private organisation. Imo though, they only did it because they bowed to pressure from some groups with the agenda of shutting down any criticism of themselves (which managed to get support from others), and lied about not knowing about her views previously. The situation with Trump came up after the invitation had been made. The organisation felt the need to take a particular stance about what he said and they have a right to. Hirsi Ali hadn’t changed her position or invited any new opprobrium since her invite.

The Myanmar government is certainly oppressive. Their treatment of the Rohingya Muslims is abominable, and has received too little attention, due, I believe, to prevailing Islamophobia in the western world. It also reveals that Buddhism is subject to the same intolerance as other religions.

Issues of freedom of speech have also been prominent in the US recently. Donald Trump was disinvited from a conference at which he was to have been keynote speaker, for his remarks about Megan Kelly during and after the Republican debate. How is this different from the withdrawal of an invitation to Ayaan Hirsi Ali to speak at Brandeis, which was decried by some as a violation of freedom of speech?

Then there is the case of Steven Salaita who was fired by the University of Illinois for his tweets on Gaza last summer, critical of Israel. Apparently some major donors convinced the Chancellor to fire him. Salaita sued. A federal judge has just refused to dismiss Salaita’s lawsuit against the university for violating his free speech, and the Chancellor has resigned. Somehow, certain outspoken defenders of free speech in universities, who are adamant in defending the free speech of those who criticize Islam and Muslims, seem to have missed this one. Perhaps because Salaita’s speech criticized Israel’s treatment of Muslims? It’s easy to defend the free speech of those you agree with. Apparently, it’s also easy to ignore much more serious violations of free speech that one doesn’t agree with.

https://www.popularresistance.org/u-of-i-chancellor-resigns-over-her-firing-of-prof-over-gaza/

Your thoughts?