This was in response to New York Republican Representative Elise Stefanik’s questions on whether advocating the genocide of Jews constituted a violation of their anti-bullying or harassment policies. The presidents clarified that judgment would be contingent upon the circumstances and behaviour involved. A rapid and extensive public outcry followed.
After her House Committee testimony, Liz Magill, widely acknowledged as a champion of free speech, was forced to resign as president of the University of Pennsylvania after a year and a half in the position. Harvard president Claudine Gay made a public apology via the Harvard Crimson student newspaper. Both Gay and MIT president Sally Kornbluth remain under pressure.
Freedom of speech, a cornerstone of American and other democratic societies, has become entangled in debates on self-censorship, hate speech, doxxing and cancel culture, as well as politics. So has the complex concept of freedom of speech been lost to political correctness?
Liz Magill’s December 5 congressional testimony led to a backlash, and her resignation on December 9. Photo: Getty Images/TNS)
One example is the considerable millions being withdrawn from universities by donors over university leadership’s reluctance to be drawn into the zero-sum narrative that has emerged since the outbreak of the Israel-Gaza war. The scale of the sustained Israeli military response to Hamas’ brutal attack has polarised public opinion.
Right after Magill’s testimony, Ross Stone, CEO of Stone Ridge Asset Management, threatened on social media to withdraw a US$100 million donation to the University of Pennsylvania, demanding a change in “leadership and values”. Other instances of funding withdrawal threats have been reported.
Social media has had a significant impact on freedom of speech, both positively and negatively. On the one hand, social media gives individuals a powerful platform for expressing their opinions, sharing information and engaging in public discourse. But it also increases the pressure to conform to prevailing narratives or avoid controversy, changing the concept of freedom of expression forever.
Its influence and global reach, and the anonymity it offers, have become breeding grounds for disinformation, and discriminatory, harmful content. Such content fuels the devaluation and marginalisation of certain groups, fostering a toxic environment that becomes progressively difficult to regulate or manage.
Activists from Jewish Voice for Peace protest against Israel’s ground assault on Gaza and call for an immediate ceasefire, inside the Cannon House Office Building next to the US Capitol in Washington on October 18. Photo: EPA-EFE
Navigating these complex issues requires deliberation. Safeguarding freedom of speech while addressing self-censorship, hate speech and the potential pitfalls of cancel culture is a delicate task.
It calls for fostering open dialogue, promoting empathy and cultivating an environment that encourages respectful engagement while protecting the rights and dignity of all individuals.
Interestingly, in an interview with NBC News following the House Committee testimonies, University of Pennsylvania student newspaper editors called for “respectful discourse” and said that students on both sides feel the space for open discussion has been lost. Questions are being raised about the fairness and openness of US society.
In recent years, Hong Kong has been the focus of adverse media reporting and this has escalated with increased geopolitical tensions. The derisory narrative has led many people, including academics, to raise questions about our fundamental freedoms.
Critics of Hong Kong national security law conveniently ignore Singapore, US and UK legislation
It is necessary to remind these people that we remain a free and open society under our unique “ one country, two systems” structure. Even so, we have a responsibility to avoid saying anything untruthful, hurtful or damaging about others in our community.
I am sure that leadership teams across US universities are doing their utmost to put student safety and well-being at the top of the agenda within their constitutional framework.
Sadly, the debate around the conflict in the Middle East has become a toxic, zero-sum narrative. This should not be the case and must change. We must hold fast to the sanctity of human life, for both sides. So, where does this leave the freedom of speech ideal?
Bernard Chan is a Hong Kong businessmanandformer Executive Council convenor
Denial of responsibility! Chronicles Live is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – chronicleslive.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.
