You have the right to say you are glad someone is dead. Do you have the right to fantasize about a murdered woman handcuffed to a bed screaming in agony as she was murdered? Sadly yes. Do employers have the right to consider you a safeguarding risk as a result? My view would be yes but that remains to be seen, I am sure Aberdeen is consulting lawyers and is eager to unload this obvious dangerous nutcase of a man. There is no way in hell he is not a shit employee anyway, they have probably just feared a lawsuit from him for years and now he handed them an out.
FSU is no FIRE, they are not even handed and they chase publicity. Too bad but yet another way free speech is valuable: if you let them people will tell you who they are as will organizations.
I don't know that there's a right to fantasy. Rather, I believe there's a responsibility on this bloke not to share his depraved fantasies with the general public.
The Lucy Connolly case established that a social media post regarding violence can lead to a substantial prison term. The Free Speech Union supported Connolly, and so in principle it could have supported this man too, if it had been requested to do so.
However I believe it was a mistake to tout for his business, because now Toby Young has alienated many of the Union's supporters for no good reason.
Appreciate you elucidating the issues with FSU leaping to defend Herbert - recruiting? - and what a slap it is to the women funding the org. Still not sure Herbert doesn’t deserve free speech representation though. Have to think on it. Part of the problem is we have allowed madness, misogyny, violence, and extreme fetishes performed in public to become accepted, even praised, aspects of public life. So much so that at least half the world doesn’t understand how dangerous these men are and just how violently they loathe women. Instead they are celebrated and defended. If a terf posted this about a murdered man (except she never would!) she’d struggle to find representation unless she had incredibly deep pockets. Additionally there is the issue of Aberdeen Uni employing Herbert. Why? He’s deranged, violently hates women, and displays his sex life publicly. How does that = a stable, reliable, clear sighted employee? Aberdeen has always known who he is but CHOSE to keep him on. Probably consider him a feather in their cap. That’s part of the problem.
FSU (disclosure: I am a paid member) is posturing its principle as if it is set in stone. I am one of many who are concerned that Toby and Shaw pretend to care about free speech absolutely at the expense of hurting those who genuinely need their help. They don’t have to shout out loud that they would represent this vile man if he asks them to. They can keep that part quiet. But virtue signal like that, which Toby has been criticising for years, does not help his cause. Nor his supporters.
Imagine FSU supports Hitler’s right to say final solution, extermination of Jews etc on radio ??? Is that free speech?
I'm a member of the FSU and proud to be so. I frequently contribute to specific campaigns that I have a particular interest in.
Short of incitement to murder or incitement to injur or harm someone physically, I support the rights of anyone to say what they wish. That includes this man from Aberdeen with regard to Ann Widdecombe.
But freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. It's not a free pass to say what you want without consequence. Whilst this man can say what he wants, I have the right to be disgusted by it and take such position as I might. That may include writing to Aberdeen University to complain. They in turn may decide that this person is bringing, or has brought, the University into disrepute and dismiss them from their position.
Whilst you have a right to free speech it comes with consequences and so it should. Ordinarily, the police should not get involved but other people might feel enraged and act and treat you accordingly....within the law.
Your article sounds bitter and resentful. It does you no favours.
Men often call women “bitter” when they respond unfavourably to other men. I think I laid out my case pretty well in both explaining why I feel the line to Herbert’s free speech defence is less clear than first appeared and also why I feel FSU were wrong to offer to defend a man who is himself vehemently against women’s rights.
It’s interesting that you can read my work as evaluative of both men, and seem to agree with most of what I’ve said … but then still make your own comment personal.
This really is nothing to do with who is a man and who is a woman. I support much of what you have said. I am entirely on Ann Widdecombe's side here.
I don't care if Mr Herbert gets the sack and never manages to find gainful employment again. That's the price of saying things that most sane people will find utterly repugnant.
My argument is that it shouldn't, in this case, involve the police. Further, that Mr Herbert's utterences were not inciteful, or not sufficiently so to warrant criminal sanction.
I know you don't care what I think because you've told me.
How to make friends and influence people by Jean Hatchet.
If a man freely shares his torture fantasies online, and is employed by a college for young people, some of whom are likely to meet the legal definition of 'at risk', how might we evaluate whether he is a safeguarding risk without police intervention to access devices such as phones and laptops? Or must we wait for harm to be caused, then prosecute after?
In the recent past, a cross-dresser boasting about torture fantasies in public might have received the attention of mental health services and be detained in a psychiatric facility against their will.
Of course, FSU was always going to struggle...being the good guy and all things to all people was going to hand Toby Young a poison chalice. It's a Ridiculous one sided idea dealing in the critique of partiality in the name of impartiality...but THERE IS NO SUCH THING OR PERSPECTIVE AS AN IMPARTIAL ONE
Also we mustn't forget TY's political genealogy...his father's status in the academic world. And by the way, as in the case of that old communist Claire Fox, I ask in all seriousness how he can sit in the HOUSE OF LORDS AND SLEEP AT NIGHT?
You either believe in the concept of freedom of expression or you don’t. There is no ‘middle ground’, no exceptions save for the obvious ones involving national security or the administration of justice. And there is most definitely no exception when it comes to speech that you personally do not agree with.
So far as the FSU is concerned, I see no reason why it should not defend Herbert provided he’s paid his subscription. To do so does not imply that the FSU shares his views (I’m sure very few do), simply that it approaches the issue of freedom of expression with clarity and without bias.
FSU could have just said that if this awful man was a dues-paying member, they would have considered representing him, but probably wouldn't choose to because of the numbers of requests they receive from other dues-paying members whose free speech rights are being violated in far more egregious ways, ie, they are being criminalized or punished for speaking about reality, which is a much greater threat to society and more worth the FSU's limited resources.
The term 'free speech absolutist' comprises a redundant word. You are for the right to free speech or you are against it. The abhorrence, or otherwise, of anyone's speech is irrelevant.
If a person's words are intented to incite others to commit violent acts, it ceases to be a case of free speech protection, but one of incitement to violence. In such cases, the threshold must be sufficiently high, to prevent such laws being used to encroach on the right to free speech.
In the case of Scott Herbert, the FSU is being true to its defence of free speech. Defending the speech of the most repugnant minds is critical, because silencing such low hanging fruit legitimises mission creep among those with the intent and power to broaden speech restrictions.
The author of this piece is peddling the 'I'm for free speech, but...' line. Translated? I'm against free speech. Spurious speculation about the FSU doing a disservice to women doesn't change this.
You have the right to say you are glad someone is dead. Do you have the right to fantasize about a murdered woman handcuffed to a bed screaming in agony as she was murdered? Sadly yes. Do employers have the right to consider you a safeguarding risk as a result? My view would be yes but that remains to be seen, I am sure Aberdeen is consulting lawyers and is eager to unload this obvious dangerous nutcase of a man. There is no way in hell he is not a shit employee anyway, they have probably just feared a lawsuit from him for years and now he handed them an out.
FSU is no FIRE, they are not even handed and they chase publicity. Too bad but yet another way free speech is valuable: if you let them people will tell you who they are as will organizations.
Interesting comments Kathleen. Thank you.
I don't know that there's a right to fantasy. Rather, I believe there's a responsibility on this bloke not to share his depraved fantasies with the general public.
The Lucy Connolly case established that a social media post regarding violence can lead to a substantial prison term. The Free Speech Union supported Connolly, and so in principle it could have supported this man too, if it had been requested to do so.
However I believe it was a mistake to tout for his business, because now Toby Young has alienated many of the Union's supporters for no good reason.
Appreciate you elucidating the issues with FSU leaping to defend Herbert - recruiting? - and what a slap it is to the women funding the org. Still not sure Herbert doesn’t deserve free speech representation though. Have to think on it. Part of the problem is we have allowed madness, misogyny, violence, and extreme fetishes performed in public to become accepted, even praised, aspects of public life. So much so that at least half the world doesn’t understand how dangerous these men are and just how violently they loathe women. Instead they are celebrated and defended. If a terf posted this about a murdered man (except she never would!) she’d struggle to find representation unless she had incredibly deep pockets. Additionally there is the issue of Aberdeen Uni employing Herbert. Why? He’s deranged, violently hates women, and displays his sex life publicly. How does that = a stable, reliable, clear sighted employee? Aberdeen has always known who he is but CHOSE to keep him on. Probably consider him a feather in their cap. That’s part of the problem.
FSU (disclosure: I am a paid member) is posturing its principle as if it is set in stone. I am one of many who are concerned that Toby and Shaw pretend to care about free speech absolutely at the expense of hurting those who genuinely need their help. They don’t have to shout out loud that they would represent this vile man if he asks them to. They can keep that part quiet. But virtue signal like that, which Toby has been criticising for years, does not help his cause. Nor his supporters.
Imagine FSU supports Hitler’s right to say final solution, extermination of Jews etc on radio ??? Is that free speech?
No. Free speech is not absolute.
I note you totally fail to engage with my points about the substance of those tweets or their merit as free speech.
Well you’re on my article comments. You’re not too big to be bumped off them.
I'm a member of the FSU and proud to be so. I frequently contribute to specific campaigns that I have a particular interest in.
Short of incitement to murder or incitement to injur or harm someone physically, I support the rights of anyone to say what they wish. That includes this man from Aberdeen with regard to Ann Widdecombe.
But freedom of speech comes with responsibilities. It's not a free pass to say what you want without consequence. Whilst this man can say what he wants, I have the right to be disgusted by it and take such position as I might. That may include writing to Aberdeen University to complain. They in turn may decide that this person is bringing, or has brought, the University into disrepute and dismiss them from their position.
Whilst you have a right to free speech it comes with consequences and so it should. Ordinarily, the police should not get involved but other people might feel enraged and act and treat you accordingly....within the law.
Your article sounds bitter and resentful. It does you no favours.
Men often call women “bitter” when they respond unfavourably to other men. I think I laid out my case pretty well in both explaining why I feel the line to Herbert’s free speech defence is less clear than first appeared and also why I feel FSU were wrong to offer to defend a man who is himself vehemently against women’s rights.
It’s interesting that you can read my work as evaluative of both men, and seem to agree with most of what I’ve said … but then still make your own comment personal.
I am of course devastated by your opinion of me.
And thus, you reaffirm my point for me.
This really is nothing to do with who is a man and who is a woman. I support much of what you have said. I am entirely on Ann Widdecombe's side here.
I don't care if Mr Herbert gets the sack and never manages to find gainful employment again. That's the price of saying things that most sane people will find utterly repugnant.
My argument is that it shouldn't, in this case, involve the police. Further, that Mr Herbert's utterences were not inciteful, or not sufficiently so to warrant criminal sanction.
I know you don't care what I think because you've told me.
How to make friends and influence people by Jean Hatchet.
I don’t want to be your friend Tony. Have you not got friends of your own?
It's okay Jean. I get the picture.
If a man freely shares his torture fantasies online, and is employed by a college for young people, some of whom are likely to meet the legal definition of 'at risk', how might we evaluate whether he is a safeguarding risk without police intervention to access devices such as phones and laptops? Or must we wait for harm to be caused, then prosecute after?
In the recent past, a cross-dresser boasting about torture fantasies in public might have received the attention of mental health services and be detained in a psychiatric facility against their will.
Actually Tony it is you who has told on himself
Not Jean
Thanks for speaking your mind so we could all see it ooze about
What....by saying the article sounded resentful and bitter.
It reveals nothing. It was just an opinion as to the tone of the piece. Others may not see it that way.
I think Mr Herbert is a thoroughly despicable creature FWIW.
You're right
Of course, FSU was always going to struggle...being the good guy and all things to all people was going to hand Toby Young a poison chalice. It's a Ridiculous one sided idea dealing in the critique of partiality in the name of impartiality...but THERE IS NO SUCH THING OR PERSPECTIVE AS AN IMPARTIAL ONE
Also we mustn't forget TY's political genealogy...his father's status in the academic world. And by the way, as in the case of that old communist Claire Fox, I ask in all seriousness how he can sit in the HOUSE OF LORDS AND SLEEP AT NIGHT?
You either believe in the concept of freedom of expression or you don’t. There is no ‘middle ground’, no exceptions save for the obvious ones involving national security or the administration of justice. And there is most definitely no exception when it comes to speech that you personally do not agree with.
So far as the FSU is concerned, I see no reason why it should not defend Herbert provided he’s paid his subscription. To do so does not imply that the FSU shares his views (I’m sure very few do), simply that it approaches the issue of freedom of expression with clarity and without bias.
He hasn’t paid his subscription. That is rather my point.
The FSU have stated that they may help him if he joins. I see nothing wrong with this, in fact I make precisely this point myself.
FSU could have just said that if this awful man was a dues-paying member, they would have considered representing him, but probably wouldn't choose to because of the numbers of requests they receive from other dues-paying members whose free speech rights are being violated in far more egregious ways, ie, they are being criminalized or punished for speaking about reality, which is a much greater threat to society and more worth the FSU's limited resources.
"Pictures you can smell" at the beginning of the post.
Thanks for an excellent piece, Jean and I have cross posted
What a disgusting person Mr Herbert is!
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/you-dont-make-up-for-your-sins-in
Please see my comments there and would love to hear from you in the comments section
Cheers
Dusty
The term 'free speech absolutist' comprises a redundant word. You are for the right to free speech or you are against it. The abhorrence, or otherwise, of anyone's speech is irrelevant.
If a person's words are intented to incite others to commit violent acts, it ceases to be a case of free speech protection, but one of incitement to violence. In such cases, the threshold must be sufficiently high, to prevent such laws being used to encroach on the right to free speech.
In the case of Scott Herbert, the FSU is being true to its defence of free speech. Defending the speech of the most repugnant minds is critical, because silencing such low hanging fruit legitimises mission creep among those with the intent and power to broaden speech restrictions.
The author of this piece is peddling the 'I'm for free speech, but...' line. Translated? I'm against free speech. Spurious speculation about the FSU doing a disservice to women doesn't change this.