Battle of Ideas Festival Audio Archive

Academic freedom: (still) under threat?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONOnly three weeks after taking office, Labour Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson quietly kiboshed the protections for free speech promised by the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. If implemented, this much-debated legislation – that eventually achieved cross-party support – would have given sharper teeth to universities’ existing free speech duties. HE institutions would become dutybound to actively promote free speech on campus and academics, students and visiting speakers would gain recourse to the law should they have invitations to speak on campuses overturned. A ‘free speech czar’ within the Office for Students was to be granted powers to investigate breaches of these free speech protections.
All this has been thrown up in the air with the announcement that the Act has been ‘paused’ and may well be repealed. The Free Speech Union has threatened the government with Judicial Review, claiming that overturning legislation by ministerial fiat is unlawful. We must wait to see if this forces the government to account for its decision – and even creates the impetus for the Act to be implemented. But what should we make of the decision to renege on a democratically established law to pursue free speech in universities?
One stated reason for halting the act was relieving universities of a ‘burdensome’ duty to protect free speech. As even supporters of the law change were concerned at it being reduced to an overly bureaucratic time-consuming exercise by half-hearted Vice chancellors and administrators, does this objection ring true?
Announcing the act would be paused, Phillipson said that if continued it would ‘expose students to harm and appalling hate speech on campuses’. How can we counter that point given that the legislation was designed to work within existing law on hate and harms, which themselves are often subjective and contested categories. Was it only a matter of time before the free speech act unravelled, leading to tit for tat accusations of harm and hate and endless lawfare?
More sinisterly, some say that in the context of many universities struggling financially, powerful college managements successfully lobbied Government to protect partnerships with countries like China, which are hostile to free speech and require appeasing in order to secure overseas campus developments, lucrative research partnerships and permissions to send international students to the UK. Is free speech on campus being sacrificed to create cosy relationships with authoritarian regimes?
Regardless, while few believed the free speech law by itself would turn the tide of cancellations, conformity and intolerance that has plagued academic life, the political push for intellectual openness alerted many to the free speech crisis in UK universities. How can this momentum be built upon further? What now for those who are concerned about securing intellectual diversity and heterogeneous opinion on campus?
SPEAKERSDr Bryn HarrisChief Legal Counsel, Free Speech Union
Helen Joycedirector of advocacy, Sex Matters; author, TRANS: when ideology meets reality
Akua Reindorf KCbarrister, Cloisters Chambers
Michelle Shipworthassociate professor, UCL Energy Institute, University College London
Graham Stringer MPmember of parliament, Blackley and Middleton South; select committee member, Science and Technology Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarisheducation and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

A sense of place: how to create community in a fractured world

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Research by The Belonging Forum has identified a widespread crisis of loneliness and social isolation in the UK. One in 10 people in the UK say they have no close friends. And friendship appears to matter: just 34 per cent of those who are not satisfied with the quality of their friendships are satisfied with their life, half the level for those satisfied with their friendships.
Newspapers frequently run headlines about the problem and dangers of loneliness,.  However, this new research reveals that the problem goes beyond loneliness, with people losing their connection to places, struggling to find a purpose, and losing trust in systems of power. The challenge, in short, is a deficit of belonging.
The groups most affected were perhaps surprising, with young women, renters, people with disabilities standing out alongside older people. For example, nearly half (48 per cent) of young people aged 18 to 34 reported feeling anxious the day before, with this figure halving for those over 55 (25 per cent).
Geographically, the research found people in neighbourhoods in UK cities reported experiencing loneliness, in spite of appearing to be surrounded by all that a city offers. Social isolation and generational tensions, as well as debates over inadequate housing and decaying high streets, are a persistent feature of our national conversation. High levels of immigration and the nature of transient urban communities, with people moving long distances for work, require us to redouble our commitments to building and maintaining community bonds and social fabric. But is this happening?
While sharing the same local geographic space, many age, identity and demographic cohorts seem to live parallel lives that can undermine shared outlooks and values. Increasingly, local and international tensions – defined more by differences than by a sense of belonging – have been an increasing feature of some communities’ experience.
How can we transcend such fragmentation and regain a sense of belonging and cohesion? Big events like Glastonbury, the King’s Coronation and the Euros tapped into a sense that people still want to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and to share collective moments – however fleeting.
Have we stopped identifying with the places in which we live, whether that be our local town or village, or with the country itself and its values? Does social media and online algorithms result in communities based on interests and ideologies? Do we lack the institutions – such as churches, trades unions, pubs and social clubs – that, in the past, played a big role in socialising the young and bringing people together? How can we avoid community being replaced by communities, to view ourselves and others as equal citizens rather than as members of cultural tribes or isolated individuals? Or should we be more optimistic about the forging of new solidarities as communities change and join together in new ways?
SPEAKERSDave Clementswriter and policy advisor; contributing co-editor The Future of Community
William Cloustonparty leader, Social Democratic Party
Abbot Christopher JamisonAbbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence
Michael Merrickdirector of schools, Diocese of Lancaster; former teacher; education and social commentator
Kim Samuelfounder, the Belonging Forum; author, On Belonging: Finding Connection in an Age of Isolation; educator; activist
CHAIRDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates (forthcoming) and Keeping Their Marbles

(Mis)information: the battle for free speech online

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Sunday 20 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
There’s no doubt that the growth of social media, online self-publishing and, now, AI, poses challenges for public discussion. It can be hard to tell what is true or false when claptrap, unfounded assertions or falsified narratives can be spread with ease online – sometimes by tinfoil-bedecked conspiracy proponents and bad-faith actors, sometimes by well-meaning, if naïve, individuals.
The worry is that our digital culture fuels hate speech, online harms, fake news, identity-driven polarisation and even violence. Elon Musk, owner of X, the social-media company most associated with free speech, is attacked by Big Tech critics who accuse him of stirring up tensions and violence by retweeting the claims of questionable individuals. Others worry about harmful or illegal material circulated on encrypted messaging services such as WhatsApp and Telegram. In a year of global elections, hyper-realistic videos and audio recordings created by Generative AI have fuelled fears of deep-fake threats to democracy.
Free speech does not mean unbridled licence because, as free speech critics regularly assert, you cannot falsely shout ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre. But working out where the boundaries of acceptability lie is seldom easy. Many might baulk at the arrest of Pavel Durov, the Russian billionaire founder of Telegram, but also question if platforms accused of supporting child pornographers and people traffickers should operate unchecked by officials. Was the UK home secretary, Yvette Cooper, right to hold social-media companies responsible for ‘shocking misinformation’ that escalated the riots and ‘the deliberate organisation of violence’ on these platforms? And what should we make of Prime Minister Kier Starmer’s comments that ‘social media companies have a responsibility for ensuring that there is no safe place for hatred and illegality on their platforms’?
Others worry that democracy itself is under threat when the charge of spreading misinformation becomes a go-to justification for restrictions in public life. In Brazil, a notoriously activist judge supported by the Supreme Court has banned X/Twitter for 22million users there, X’s fourth largest market. In America, First Amendment free-speech protection proved no barrier to Facebook being strong-armed into taking down posts after the Biden administration accused it of spreading misinformation on Covid vaccines and facemasks.
Do the public need protection from untruths and, if so, what legal controls should there be? Is there a problem of political bias when it comes to assessing misinformation, with authorities picking and choosing which untruths they go after? How can we tackle the actual problems of misinformation, while resisting cancellations and bans? Or should we simply tolerate the free dissemination of all ideas, in order to avoid the development of a broader censorious culture?
SPEAKERSTimandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; author, Technology is Not the Problem and Big Data: does size matter?; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, the spiked podcast
Nico Perrinoexecutive vice president, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)
Eli Vieirajournalist; editor, Gazeta do Povo; writer, Twitter Files - Brazil
Dr Daniel Williamslecturer in Philosophy, University of Sussex
CHAIRAlastair Donaldco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; convenor, Living Freedom; author, Letter on Liberty: The Scottish Question

(De)socialised on YouTube?

Recording of a debate at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Young people are increasingly growing up online. To some, this conjures up images of anti-social boys spending hours on YouTube in their bedrooms or Mum’s basement. It has sinister connotations of incels and rabbit-hole radicalisation. But for some GenZers, YouTube offers a renaissance of online public intellectuals prepared to challenge woke orthodoxies.
For example, increasing numbers of students feel let down by traditional education, dominated by DEI priorities and activist professors, so have embraced the online world as a source of alternative education. They are reacting by identifying with high-profile, often right-wing dissidents who provide an alternative worldview and crucially a wider range of facts and information than the fashionable, but prescriptive cultural theories they are exposed to on campus.
Since the explosion of what the then New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss dubbed the Intellectual Dark Web and the viral embrace of the New Atheists online, long-form podcasts and personality-led interview shows, along with YouTube history and science videos, are increasingly filling a void. And while both young and old are turning to the internet, it plays an increasing role in young people’s view of how to get educated. From personal development and wellbeing to politics, history, philosophy, science and more, there’s something on the internet for everyone’s interest.
Some welcome this as a new era of autodidacts, arguing that it democratises knowledge, makes education more readily available, and provides a way of escaping the ideological capture of institutions. And with crippling tuition fees and an alleged collapse of academic standards at universities, online alternatives can provide the excitement about learning that traditional institutions lack and may put some much-needed pressure on the old guard.
However, others worry about a new ‘Wild West’ online. Yes, YouTube may have popularised Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. But it has also spawned the likes of Andrew Tate, Candace Owens, Bronze Age Pervert and a proliferation of ill-informed conspiracy theorists and false prophets.
What’s more, educational commentators note that a life full of YouTube gurus may be implicitly anti-intellectual. Why even read books when you can listen to a podcast or watch a video that is much more engaging? And while viewers may feel in control of curating what content they are exposed to, algorithmic choices may create echo chambers just as narrow as those bastions of Diversity and Inclusion dogma that users are trying to escape.
But while ‘concerned adults’ may find this world anti-social and worryingly alienating, its adherents praise a sense of a solidarity that comes from this novel shared virtual public sphere just when the offline community seems to be fracturing.
Is the problem with grown-ups who just don’t get it? Can the online world provide a robust virtual intellectual community and genuine knowledge-building, or is it an illusion? Is the online intellectual world the future, or are we throwing the baby out with the bath water by disregarding traditional education?
SPEAKERSAda Akpalawriter and commentator; head of content, The Equiano Project
Elliot Bewickhost, The Next Generation; former producer, TRIGGERnometry
Andrew GoldYouTuber; host, Heretics
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, the spiked podcast
CHAIRMax Sandersonassistant managing editor, Guardian

The future of abortion rights

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Abortion rights have always been a thorny political issue, but recent events have propelled the question of women’s reproductive choice to the fore. The overturning of the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling in the US means a woman’s right to abortion is no longer protected by the constitution, allowing states to set their own laws. Indiana became the first state to implement a near total ban on abortion services, while voters in the conservative state of Kansas surprised both sides by voting in favour of protecting abortion rights. Has American democracy improved because of the fall of Roe, or should women’s freedom of choice be reinstated in constitutional law?
The abortion debate is also far from over in the UK. Rows and divisions opened afresh over the distribution of abortion pills via telemedicine, which was permanently legalised earlier this year. Meanwhile, many criticised the then justice secretary, Dominic Raab, for refusing to put abortion into his proposed Bill of Rights. Pro-choice campaigners have long pointed to the outdated nature of British law, which makes abortion illegal, but with caveats allowing women to freely access abortion services up until 24 weeks of pregnancy. As a result, several women have been criminalised for suspected illegal abortions.
National polls consistently show greater support for choice than restriction when it comes to abortion, but pro-life organisations have also seen an upsurge of support from both socially conservative politicians and campaigners alike.
How should the battle for abortion rights be fought? Is a woman’s freedom of choice best won by democratic change in the form of referendums and elections, or is it a matter for the courts? Do both sides need to get better at engaging with one another to prevent abortion rights becoming yet another culture war? And with national campaigns for abortion rights mounting everywhere, from Poland to Portland, what is next for the global pro-choice movement?
SPEAKERSDr Piers Bennphilosopher, author and lecturer
Mary Kennyjournalist; playwright; author, The Way We Were: Catholic Ireland since 1922 and Something of Myself - and Others; columnist, Irish Independent Magazine
Margo Martinstudent, Aberystwyth University
Dervla Murphystudent and researcher interested in abortion and reproductive health, generation, free speech and gender, University of Kent; alumni, Debating Matters
CHAIRBríd Hehirwriter, researcher and blogger; retired nurse and fundraiser
 

Lawfare: the use and abuse of law to fight for freedom

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
‘Something’s wrong, change the law’ epitomises the approach of many to social change. And few can doubt that social change has often walked in step with legal reform. Maya Forstater, Harry Miller and Allison Bailey have all won court cases recently that have clarified the law against illiberal and censorious trends relating to free speech and equalities legislation. But is there a danger that today’s social reformers are focused on Lawfare, the use of law to change society, as a short cut to taking the public with them?
For example, the recently announced class action against the Tavistock Clinic is seen by some as a more effective tool than political campaigning in halting the seemingly relentless march of gender ideology. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill aims to outlaw ‘cancel culture’ on campus. For those striving for reform, it may be easier to change the law in Parliament or persuade a judge than to change hearts and minds in the public.
But without wider public support, such victories could be reversed just as easily, as illustrated in the US by the overturning of the abortion rights established in Roe v Wade. Moreover, legal victories can be ignored, as in the continued use of Non-Crime Hate Incident reporting, despite Fair Cop’s victory in the courts.
Should the law reflect a popular consensus, or can it be used to ‘improve’ the consensus? Is seeking legal protection against egregious examples of, for instance, workplace cancel culture, a remedy or an evasion? What are the pros and cons of using the law courts as allies of liberty?
SPEAKERSMaya Forstaterexecutive director, Sex Matters
Luke Gittoscriminal lawyer; author, Human Rights – Illusory Freedom
Jeremiah Igunnubolebarrister; legal counsel, ADF International; former senior crown prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service
Sarah Phillimorebarrister; campaigner, Fair Cop; member, Bad Law Project
James Tooleyvice chancellor, University of Buckingham; author, The Beautiful Tree
CHAIRJacob Reynoldspartnerships manager, Academy of Ideas
 

Is cancel culture killing the arts?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTIONAlmost everywhere you look, the arts are beset by controversies and cancellations.
At the Edinburgh Fringe this year, the infamous comedian Jerry Sadowitz had his show cancelled by The Pleasance for what staff called ‘unacceptable’ content. Cineworld pulled UK screenings of the film The Lady Of Heaven this year, after protesters claimed that the film was ‘blasphemous’ and offensive to Islam. In 2020, staff at Hachette Book Group staged a walk-out demanding the cancellation of the upcoming release of Woody Allen’s memoir.
In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, many arts organisations cancelled performances linked to Russian artists and funders. Similar cancellations – or boycotts – have long taken place against Israeli artists under the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement.
Critics of cancel culture say that the arts cannot survive this worsening climate of censorship. Artistic freedom, they say, cannot flourish when artists themselves feel hemmed in by political orthodoxies or concerns about causing offence. But others argue that accountability, not free speech, is more important for a thriving art world. Giving films like Gone With The Wind a trigger warning, or getting publishers to stop working with writers who are accused of racism, are seen as important steps in cleaning up the art world, which has often been considered out of step with contemporary sensibilities.
Cancel culture has come for the arts – but can the arts survive it? Do bans and cancellations wound artistic expression, or act as a means for audiences and art lovers to hold artists to account? Will a climate of sensitivity readers and diversity box-ticking allow more socially conscious art to grow, or kill off the more unorthodox works that have always pushed at the boundaries of artistic freedom? And why, of all areas of life, does the arts seem to be the focal point in which these culture wars keep playing out?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERSDr Tiffany Jenkinswriter and broadcaster; author, Strangers and Intimates: the rise and fall of private life and Keeping Their Marbles: how treasures of the past ended up in museums and why they should stay there
Rosie Kaydancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD
Winston Marshallmusician; writer; podcast host, Marshall Matters; founding member, Mumford & Sons
Emma Webbdirector, Common Sense Society, UK branch; host, Newspeak; commentator; writer; co-founder, Save Our Statues
CHAIRClaire Foxdirector, Academy of Ideas; independent peer, House of Lords; author, I STILL Find That Offensive!
 

Identity politics: just skin deep?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Identity politics is ubiquitous in Western public life today and the subject of much vexed debate – and even something of a backlash. Many fear it threatens democracy, liberalism and free speech. However, its supporters suggest that the twenty-first-century identitarian is simply the latest version of those activists who demanded women’s or black liberation in the 1960s. Economic forecasts suggest unprecedented threats to livelihoods and prosperity, with material deprivation and immiseration a real possibility for millions. Yet many political activists seem more concerned with demands that our identities are acknowledged by others as core to who we are.
Left/right ideological political battles appear to have been usurped by internecine warfare between competitive personalised identities, checking each other’s privilege. As an ever-expanding number of groups demand that their specific ‘protected characteristics’ should be covered by equality legislation, it seems that the trend towards fragmentary identity is now a given way of fighting discrimination.
Yet many who are hostile to such ‘oppression Olympics’ – and happily lampoon, for example, the vast array of genders to choose from or change to – often ape this identitarian trend themselves. Take the way that championing the white working class – or complaining that they have been left behind – is so often a mirror image of the politicisation of racial identity and victimhood. In his book, The Identity Myth, David Swift claims the ‘right-wing invocation of “white working-class boys” is useful for culture war nonsense, but does not translate into a desire to ensure they are well fed’.
Can the politics of solidarity and the ideal of universalism survive a society divided into often competing and increasingly fragmented identity groups? Can the historical, more humanistic identities that once gave meaning to people’s lives – from institutions such as the family, class and nation to political movements for change – be reconstituted? Are critiques of identitarianism an overreaction to what might be understood as the self-empowerment of those previously marginalised excluded groups? Are we defined by the group we ‘belong’ to or do our experiences and choices make us who we are? What does identity mean today?
SPEAKERSShaun BaileyLondon-wide assembly member; former Conservative candidate for Mayor 2021; youth worker; co-founder, My Generation
Iona Italiaeditor-in-chief, Areo Magazine; author, Anxious Employment; host, Two for Tea podcast
Fraser Myersdeputy editor, spiked; host, The spiked podcast
David Swifthistorian; author, The Identity Myth and A Left for Itself
Peter Whittlefounder and director, New Culture Forum
CHAIRManick Govindaguest co-curator, Culture Tensions, Ujazdowski Castle Centre for Contemporary Art, Warsaw, Poland
 

I dissent! Challenging the culture of conformism

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2023, Sunday 29 October, Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In the face of social, political and cultural malaise, dissenting voices are vital to clarify the issues at stake and create an invigorating public life. Yet we live in times where we are expected to follow the zeitgeist and conform to received wisdom – often handed down from on high.
During lockdown, for example, experts peddling The Science brooked little challenge, aided by a media sacrificing objectivity for obedience. In the Academy, intellectual conformity rules, built around impregnable ‘truths’ of environment, wellbeing or gender. The cultural avant-garde has given way to insidious current pressures and fashions – often enforced by cultural guardians. When the cultural outlook of record labels and book festivals is echoed by debankers and corporate apparatchiks, challenging new orthodoxies carries dangers. Even the once-cherished figure of the maverick is now largely silent in the face of cancel culture.
Yet many say that an anti-conformist spirit today is alive and kicking. The ‘transgressive’ type is lauded, driving new subcultures and promoting alternative ways of living. A new media landscape promotes any number of controversial figures promoting themselves as defiant rule-breakers and portrayers of truth. But are these ‘professional contrarians’ an antidote today’s conformism, or simply cynically manipulating the culture wars?
Some say self-proclaimed dissenters – for example, critics of ‘sheeple’ and ‘snowflakes’ or ‘herd belief’ – simply conform to their own tribe’s worldview. How can we avoid dissenters becoming as intolerant of anyone who doesn’t confirm to a prescriptive list of tick-box opinions said to represent the rebellious position? Can we, too, typecast allies as well as opponents?
Take the reaction to philosopher Kathleen Stock, admired by many for her gender critical views. But when she recently raised concerns about decriminalising abortion, she was howled down many of her erstwhile supporters who took personal offence at her views. Amongst those critics of intellectual silos and echo chambers, is there a danger that anti-conformity can also become a rallying cry for its own kind of groupthink?
In other eras, too, critical thought and dissent have been banished to the margins. In the paradigmatic Age of Conformity, an impasse in public life reflected the consumer culture of the postwar boom and a mood of political passivity. What are the drivers for today’s conformist impulse? And how do we revive the notion of genuine scepticism and dissent? Given that the dissenters of 1960s counterculture and their progeny now seem central to today’s unchallengeable orthodoxies of identity-driven, emotional and personal issues, do we now need a counter-counterculture? And if so, what does that mean for those keen to revive intellectual life?
What is dissent, why is it so important and why has it become devalued today? How does dissent differ from contrarianism? In a world that craves moral certainty and a sense of solidarity, but where words are commonly viewed as hurtful and dangerous to building consensus, how best can we make the case for speaking freely?
SPEAKERSDr Peter Boghossianfounding faculty fellow, University of Austin; executive director, National Progress Alliance; author, How to Have Impossible Conversations
Jennie Bristowsenior lecturer in sociology, Canterbury Christ Church University; author, The Corona Generation: coming of age in a crisis and Growing up in Lockdown
Abbot Christopher JamisonAbbot President, English Benedictine Congregation; author, Finding the Language of Grace: rediscovering transcendence
Helen Joycedirector of advocacy, Sex Matters; author, TRANS: when ideology meets reality
Lord MoylanConservative peer
CHAIRElla Whelanco-convenor, Battle of Ideas festival; journalist; author, What Women Want

Fake news? The misinformation wars

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The most controversial legislation of this parliament is the Online Safety Bill. This vast and ever-expanding bill has for three years been subject to wrangling over new controls on harmful content and misinformation, powers that seek to make the UK ‘the safest place to be online in the world’.
A central aim is to tackle misinformation – whether in politicking and elections, war-related propaganda or global pandemics. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube are already increasingly censorious in cracking down on, for example, alleged Covid ‘misinformation’ and ‘fake’ reports such as Hunter Biden’s emails or on academics questioning the official line over Russia’s war with Ukraine. Now those services are to be further encouraged to cleanse their platforms of dissenting views or questionable information. Along with an unelected regulator, Ofcom, they’ll have powers to control what we can view, hear or read.
Many worry, rightly, over the consequences for free speech. Yet as many point out, whether related to paedophiles and grooming gangs, Pizzagate or the ‘Wuhan lab leak’, claims and counter-claims around misinformation can have important consequences for how we act and who we trust. Sometimes this has dramatic consequences, as in attacks on wireless towers and telecom engineers that followed 5G conspiracy stories. More broadly, algorithms that promote misinformed content can net billions of dollars while also fuelling distrust in civil society and democracy.
How can we solve the problem of misinformation? Does the online world of anonymity, falsehoods and harms now justify new controls? Where do the boundaries lie between disinformation and genuine disagreement? At a time when even fact checkers are thought to be biased, how do we create a basis for genuine debate when the quest for truth is disfigured by an atmosphere of mistrust?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERSJessica Butcher MBEtech entrepreneur; co-founder, Tick.; co-founder, Blippar; commissioner, Equality and Human Rights Commission
Laura Dodsworthwriter; photographer; author, A State of Fear: How the UK government weaponised fear during the Covid-19 pandemic
Professor Bill Durodiéchair of International Relations, department of politics, languages and international studies, University of Bath
Mark Johnsonlegal and policy officer, Big Brother Watch
CHAIRBruno WaterfieldBrussels correspondent, The Times

Andrew Doyle's Free Speech Nation: Live

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
Join this special live recording of Free Speech Nation, Andrew Doyle’s weekly current affairs show on GB News. The aim of the show is to offer a mixture of light-hearted commentary and in-depth interviews on all aspects of what has come to be known as the ‘culture wars’. After the success of 2021, this second special episode of the show will be pre-recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival to be broadcast the following day.
Andrew will be joined by two comedian panellists who will take questions from the audience and grapple with the creeping authoritarianism of our time. He will be interviewing science writer Matt Ridley, and the show will also include a discussion with choreographer Rosie Kay and actor James Dreyfus on how they have been affected by ‘cancel culture’.
Previous guests on Free Speech Nation include: Matt Le Tissier, Carol Decker, Tommy Tiernan, Rob Schneider, Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Andrew Sullivan, George Galloway, Ann Widdecombe, Helen Joyce, Julie Bindel, Christina Hoff Sommers and Graham Linehan.
SPEAKERS
James Dreyfusaward winning television, film and theatre actor
Josh Howiecomedian; writer and star, Josh Howie’s Losing It, BBC Radio 4; actor, Hapless; television critic, Jewish Chronicle
Rosie Kaydancer; choreographer; CEO and artistic director, K2CO LTD
Leo Kearsecomedian; writer, Breaking The News, Mock The Week and The Mash Report; co-creator, Hate 'n' Live
Matt Ridleyauthor, How Innovation Works; co-author Viral: the search for the origin of covid-19; former peer; fellow, Royal Society of Literature and the Academy of Medical Sciences
CHAIRAndrew Doylepresenter, Free Speech Nation, GB News; writer and comedian; author, The New Puritans: how the religion of social justice captured the Western world and Free Speech and Why It Matters

Online safety vs free speech

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The Online Safety Bill is causing huge concern for those who believe in free speech. But how can we protect free expression and still deal with the many problems that arise online?
The Bill has passed through the House of Commons and will now be debated in the House of Lords. There are hopes that Liz Truss’s government may amend the Bill to remove the most egregious problem with it: the attempt to force tech platforms and service providers – such as Twitter, Facebook, Google and many more – to remove content and ban users from expressing ideas or views that the government deems to be ‘legal but harmful’. However, the very idea that legislation was drafted to ban legal speech as it appears in the virtual public square – including references to sex and gender, race, eating disorders or the diverse category of ‘mental health challenges’ – says much about the current attitude among politicians and regulators.
Concerns remain at the wide scope of proposals in the legislation. It recommends new rules to control online services, including search engines and user-generated content. It will also affect privacy by constraining end-to-end encryption. The law will compel tech firms, who already regulate and remove content they have decided is ‘problematic’, to comply through fines and suspension, and requires they provide user tracking data on individuals who are considered to be breaking these laws. If and when the law is passed, it is now proposed that the lead time for compliance is reduced from 22 months to just two. Companies will have just over eight weeks from the royal assent of the law to make sure that they’re in full compliance to avoid penalties.
Despite these potentially draconian measures, there are undoubtedly new harms created by the online world. Are free-speech advocates being insensitive to what is novel about the internet as a threat? Trolling can go beyond unpleasant abuse to threats of violence. Children are far more likely to suffer at the hands of malicious bullying online than in the playground. Worse, such abuse can go viral. What do we do about child-safety concerns, viral sexting, online anonymous grooming, bad faith con-merchants and conspiracy-mongers passing off misinformation as fact? What of the potential psychological damage, particularly for those considered more socially and psychologically ‘at-risk’? Is it good enough to argue that these ‘crimes’ are already protected by existing laws?
In any event, safety issues and legislation may not even be the biggest free-speech issues online. In fact, perhaps it is Big Tech companies that have the real power. For example, Spotify has removed podcasts it deems politically unacceptable while PayPal has removed support for organisations critical of Covid policies and gender ideology.
Does the online world, warts and all, present free-speech supporters with insurmountable problems? Or is free speech a fundamental societal value that must be fought for, whatever the consequences or regardless of the challenges of any new technology?
SPEAKERS
Lord Charles ColvilleCrossbench peer, House of Lords; former member, Communications and Digital Select Committee; freelance TV producer
Paddy Hannamresearcher, House of Commons; writer and commentator
Molly Kingsleyco-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry
Graham Smithtech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle
Toby Younggeneral secretary, Free Speech Union; author, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People; associate editor, Spectator
CHAIRDr Jan Macvarisheducation and events director, Free Speech Union; author, Neuroparenting: the expert invasion of family life

Is Net Zero economic suicide?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
In July 2019, the Climate Change Act was amended to set a target of ‘net zero’ greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. In 2021, the government announced an interim target of cutting emissions by 78 per cent by 2035 compared to 1990 levels.
While politicians talk about the need to revive the UK economy, that legal obligation is already being used by environmental organisation to stymie development. For example, in March this year, Friends of the Earth was given permission to take the government to court over its failure to set out how the carbon reduction targets will be met.
For critics of the policy, setting a target in law without new technologies that will allow the economy to grow, carbon-free, is a recipe for disaster. The upshot is bans on gas boilers, petrol-powered cars and more – with no cost-effective alternatives in place as yet. Former Conservative leadership contender Kemi Badenoch ruffled feathers when she said: ‘I believe there is climate change and that’s something we do need to tackle, but we have to do it in a way that doesn’t bankrupt our economy.’
But supporters claim that a new ‘green economy’ will actually mean more jobs and more economic growth than a fossil-fuelled ‘business as usual’, with whole new routes for innovation and enormous work to be done changing society over to a new way of doing things.
Is Net Zero an economic disaster in the making or a vitally important goal that can enable us to remake the UK economy for the twenty-first century?
SPEAKERSRabina Khanwriter and commentator; former councillor and special advisor; author, My Hair Is Pink Under This Veil
Professor Vicky Prycechief economic adviser and board member, Centre for Economics and Business Research; author, Women vs Capitalism
Andy Shawco-founder, Comedy Unleashed
James Woudhuysenvisiting professor, forecasting and innovation, London South Bank University
Martin Wrightchair, Positive News; formerly editor-in-chief, Green Futures; former director, Forum for the Future
CHAIRRob Lyonsscience and technology director, Academy of Ideas; convenor, AoI Economy Forum

Is it the end of the road for the automobile?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Sunday 16 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
The motorcar shaped so much of 20th-century social and cultural life, and came to symbolise Western prosperity and freedom. In the 21st century, however, the dream of the motorcar seems to be running out of gas.
For some campaigners and politicians today, the motorcar has come to symbolise selfish individualism, as well as social and environmental damage. In our towns and cities, restrictions such as Low-Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), low-emission zones, 20mph speed limits and road charging are making driving increasingly impractical. Soaring fuel and running costs are pushing car ownership beyond the means of many ordinary people, particularly with proposed bans on petrol and diesel models on the horizon.
Yet the reality is that most people outside the south-east still drive to work. Life outside the biggest cities would be much harder – indeed, sometimes impossible – without access to a car. While many argue that electric cars are the future, the financial costs involved in transitioning to battery-powered vehicles are simply too much for most people to contemplate.
Have we really fallen out of love with the motorcar, or is it a vocal minority? Was mass personal transport a hubristic dream? Is it time to send the motorcar to the scrapyard, or is it possible still to make a positive case for car ownership for the future?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERS
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?
Hilton Hollowayfounder, 5054 magazine; automotive industry writer and specialist; future tech specialist
Simon Nashenvironmentalist; speaker; activist and founder, Green Oil bicycle lubes
Nigel Ruddockaccountant and insolvency specialist; trustee, former head and chairman of automotive services, Grant Thornton;
CHAIRNiall Crowleydesigner; writer; former East End pub landlord

Internet vs the nation state: a new Wild West?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2022 on Saturday 15 October at Church House, London.
ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION
For decades, there has been concern about how individual states can control the forces of the world market – particularly against multinational corporations that have bigger revenues than many countries. This debate is especially acute when it comes to the internet, where the world’s most valuable companies (like Apple, Facebook, Amazon and Netflix) operate on a global scale.
One area of concern is the regulation of content. Liberal democracies want to have some say in what is available online, such as extremist content or whether pornography is available to minors. But many argue that the tech giants are simply too big to be regulated by any one country.
Another bugbear has been tax, with big companies able to arrange their affairs to avoid paying their fair share by booking their profits in low-tax jurisdictions. However, critics of this outlook argue that there is nothing particular about the internet that prevents regulation or taxation – it is down to different countries to cooperate.
Is the nation state now redundant? With customer helplines and personalised interaction, do we relate more to online services than our own governments? How can big companies be held accountable if they operate beyond the rules of any particular country? Or are these fears overblown, with tech giants as dependent as any other company on national laws to defend their property and other rights?
Get your tickets to the 2022 Battle of Ideas festival here.
SPEAKERS
Timandra Harknessjournalist, writer and broadcaster; presenter, Radio 4's FutureProofing and How to Disagree; author, Big Data: does size matter?
Andrew Orlowskibusiness columnist, Daily Telegraph; founder, Think of X; assistant producer, All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace
Graham Smithtech and internet lawyer; of counsel, Bird & Bird LLP; author, Internet Law and Regulation; blogger, Cyberleagle
Dr Keith TeareCEO, Signalrank Corporation; Silicon-Valley-based serial entrepreneur
CHAIRSally Taplinbusiness consultant, Businessfourzero; visiting MBA lecturer, Bayes Business School; board member, Lewes FC