The Education Secretary shelved the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act in part because British universities wanted to protect their commercial operations in authoritarian states such as China. The Telegraph has more.
Earlier this month, Bridget Phillipson halted the introduction of a law aimed at forcing universities to actively promote free speech on campus, just days before they were due to come into force.
She announced that she was shelving the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 – a flagship Tory policy – and she said she will now consider repealing it.
The Department for Education (DfE) said the Bill would have a “negative” impact on vulnerable groups and that it opened universities up to costly legal challenges from academics if they fell foul of the new law.
But legal documents, seen by the Telegraph, reveal that vice-chancellors’ fears that the law would cause difficulties for their relationships with authoritarian states were also considered.
Responding to a legal challenge from the Free Speech Union (FSU), government lawyers noted that “concerns” had been raised with them about the “consequences for delivering English [higher education] in foreign countries which have restrictions on free speech”.
Several British universities operate overseas campuses as a way to attract more international students, as well as boost opportunities for lucrative research partnerships.
According to the latest figures, 18 universities have 38 campuses in 18 countries, with China and Malaysia the most popular destinations, followed by Dubai and Singapore.
The Russell Group, which represents the country’s top universities, has previously warned of the difficulties institutions would face if they had to implement the new free speech law in their campuses overseas.
The legal document also refers to concerns about the “costs of overseas transparency requirements”, which would have required universities to declare donations from foreign countries, over a certain amount.
While experts believe this points to their fear that the transparency requirement may put off prospective donors, Universities UK, the vice-chancellor membership group, said this refers to the cost of filling in forms.
A spokesman for Universities U.K. said that its members are “strongly committed to free speech and to academic freedom and they are bound by law to uphold both”, but said that the free speech law would have made working with other countries more difficult.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: More than 500 academics, including Sir Niall Fergusson, have written to Bridget Phillipson asking her to implement the Freedom of Speech Act in full. The Mail has more.
Stop Press 2: The Free Speech Union has mounted a legal challenge against the Government, convinced that Bridget Phillipson’s decision to suspend the Act was unlawful. You can contribute to the legal costs of that judicial review here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The establishment including Universities are selling England by the pound.
Genesis.
All together now, sing:
“There’ll always be a Chingland“.
[Capital: Londonistan].
“I was made in England
Like a Blue Cortina
I had a pint on Friday
And the Church on Sunday
I worked hard and raised kids
And I asked for nothing
Now the country I love is going down the tubes
Woh oh oh oh oh
I was made in England
Woh oh oh oh oh
I was made in England”.
My apologies to Bernie Taupin and Elton John
I see they’ve arrested Pavel Durov, CEO of Telegram. But is this really about cracking down on criminal behaviour on that platform or more about increased censorship and silencing dissident voices? Needless to say he has Elon Musk’s support;
”Telegram chief executive Pavel Durov has been arrested by French police at an airport north of Paris.
Mr Durov was detained after his private jet had landed at Le Bourget Airport, French media reported.
According to officials the 39-year-old billionaire was arrested under a warrant for offences related to the popular messaging app.
The investigation is reportedly about a lack of moderators, with Mr Durov accused of failing to take steps to curb criminal uses of Telegram.
Several Russian officials have condemned the businessman’s arrest.
X owner Elon Musk, who has faced extensive criticism over moderation and material hosted by his own social media site, posted repeatedly about the situation. He hashtagged one post #freepavel, and in another wrote: “POV: It’s 2030 in Europe and you’re being executed for liking a meme.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2kz9kn93o
Here he is sharing his opinion of Twitter with Tucker Carlson since Musk took over. It’s like night and day compared to what it was like before;
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1827572720936030703
Crikey, it’s worse than I thought. Potentially 20 years in jail, all because he didn’t share data with the government? How desperate can you be? Basically anything that isn’t government controlled, official narrative-spewing MSM is viewed as a massive threat. But not to ‘democracy’, to their control-obsessed Orwellian agenda;
”Ah, the plot thickens, doesn’t it? Pavel Durov, the enigmatic founder of Telegram, now finds himself facing a mountain of charges that could see him locked away for two decades. Terrorism, drug trafficking, fraud, money laundering, and child abuse content—these aren’t just minor infractions; they’re the kind of allegations that can topple empires and send shockwaves through the tech world.
Durov’s arrest is a dramatic escalation in the ongoing battle between state authorities and the bastions of digital privacy. Telegram, known for its staunch stance on user privacy and minimal content moderation, has long been a thorn in the side of governments worldwide. But now, it seems, the powers that be have decided to strike back, and they’re not pulling any punches.
The charges, according to French media, stem from a broad range of alleged crimes, all tied back to Telegram’s refusal to bow to pressure from law enforcement. The platform’s lack of cooperation, especially in matters as serious as terrorism and child exploitation, has clearly brought Durov into direct conflict with the law—a clash that now threatens his freedom and his legacy.
Facing up to 20 years in prison, Durov’s situation highlights the perilous tightrope walked by those who champion unyielding digital privacy. On one hand, his principles have made Telegram a refuge for free speech; on the other, those same principles have now put him at the mercy of the French judicial system, which seems determined to make an example of him.
The implications of this case are far-reaching. If Durov, a tech titan with dual citizenship in France and Russia, can be brought down on such severe charges, what does it mean for the future of platforms that resist state control? The message is clear: defy the system at your peril.
This trial, if it proceeds as expected, will be more than just a legal battle—it will be a defining moment in the ongoing struggle between privacy advocates and governmental authorities. Whether Durov emerges as a martyr for digital freedom or a cautionary tale for others who would follow in his footsteps remains to be seen. One thing is certain: the world will be watching closely as this drama unfolds.”
https://x.com/FakeLRonHubbard/status/1827455179987570733
Short version: Micron’s wife totally convinced of Darov being severely guilty of helping her sock puppet husband’s political opponents.
Lack of scrutiny and accountability = lack of integrity. Every time.
The government dropped free speech law primarily because the government does not believe in free speech and considers it a threat to their aim of controlling the population.
That’s about it.
The net really is tightening, isn’t it?
Disturbing times.
This story is pure fabrication. Prior to all the woke madness we didn’t need laws to protect free speech.
The law in itself guarantees very little
The 1924 constitution of the Soviet Union was one of the most liberal at the time. Freedom of speech, religion, the press, whatever.
But anybody daring to exercise these rights would have soon found out what they really meant in practice.
The notion that overseas organisations owned by UK universities would need to operate according to UK law overseas (instead of according whatever the local laws happen to be) is certainly fishy.
Extraordinary! Our laws being changed as not to upset other nations?
A honest discourse from the politicians would have been helpful here.
Do outposts of universities not have to abide by the local laws and rules of the country they are in?