A lot of science fiction conventions have codes of conduct that put severe restrictions on speech. They aren’t always enforced, and never fully and consistently, but they can be an excuse to embarrass or eject someone a concom member doesn’t like. For instance, Balticon pulled a program participant out of a panel and subjected her to humiliating treatment for vaguely defined violations of its speech code. The con apologized but dumped all the blame on one volunteer.

Conventions need to say what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable, but we have to look closely at each one’s rules to see how much it values open discussion. So let’s get a look at the Glasgow Worldcon’s rules.

It’s long. I’ve seen shorter Terms of Service on commercial websites. I’m commenting on the code as it stands on April 15, 2024. It’s subject to revision, and it’s possible that if you see it at a later date, some of the problematic points will have been addressed.

Early on there’s a bad sign: “Glasgow 2024 prioritises marginalised peoples’ safety over privileged peoples’ comfort.” This suggests that different classes of people will be treated differently. “Safety,” especially in this kind of context, too often means “not getting one’s feelings hurt.”

Anyone can put a restriction on anyone else’s actions, whether or not it violates the rules or not: “If you are acting in a manner that is disrupting or bothering another participant and they ask you to stop, you are required to stop the activity immediately. If you believe that you should be able to act in such a manner, you are still required to stop immediately, but we encourage you to reach out to the CoC team who may be able to help explain it to you.. We will listen to both sides and assist in making a determination, potentially before a formal complaint is made.” Bullies can easily take advantage of this. Someone who doesn’t like what a speaker is saying can declare, “That bothers me. Stop,” and the speaker would have to stop.

“Comments intended to belittle, offend, or cause discomfort” are prohibited. This sort of rule turns up at many conventions. Enforced consistently, it would ban a huge range of controversial statements. “Politician X is an idiot.” “I despise members of Organization Y.” “If something isn’t done about Z, we’re all doomed.” Of course, nobody enforces those rules against everything that makes someone unhappy, but they’re available to use against people who say unpopular things. There are exceptions; see further down in this post.

Also banned: “Comments intended to reinforce social structures of domination.” If you actively support the Code of Conduct, that sounds like a violation. A bit more plausibly, vocally supporting the government and the laws is a violation, and the Code itself incorporates aspects of UK law. In practice, it will mean whatever the people who enforce it want it to mean.

“Comments intended to scorn or belittle personal choices around disease mitigation in favour of decisions which are more or less cautious than other participants choices” are prohibited. You can’t say that refusing to get vaccinated is dumb.

“Microaggressions” aren’t allowed. That’s so broad and vague it could cover anything someone wants to go after.

Nor is “weaponizing this Code of Conduct” permitted. A rule against frivolous complaints makes sense, but “weaponizing” is a subjective term. When you invoke rules to protect yourself, isn’t that “weaponizing” them? The term often means using a rule or process in a way someone doesn’t like. I’ve seen claims that supporting the First Amendment to the US Constitution too vigorously is “weaponizing” it.

There’s a list of complaint types which the CoC team explicitly won’t act on, ruling out some potential craziness. People are allowed to say “Go away” or “Leave me alone,” even if it offends someone. No one is obligated to engage in a debate. Tone by itself doesn’t constitute a violation. “Criticising oppressive behaviour or assumptions” is allowed, so that’s an exception to the ban on “belittling.” However, it requires the CoC to make difficult value judgments. Is a statement legitimate criticism of oppression or not? It’s hard to rule on such things without injecting personal biases.

Another exception appears further on: “It is not a violation to disagree with another’s views.” That’s an important mitigation.

The one disturbing exception is this one: “‘Reverse discrimination’, such as reverse racism and cisphobia because challenging biases and privileges is not a form of discrimination.” I can’t even tell what it’s saying. Is it that some discrimination isn’t discrimination? It seems like a weasel-worded way of saying that some bigotry is OK. There’s no “forward” or “reverse” direction in discrimination or racism. Regarding some people as superior or contemptible because of how their genes make them look is racism, regardless of who does it or which groups are placed on top. Saying that’s OK for some racial rankings but not for others is itself a form of racism.

The rules for exhibitors and vendors tend to the prudish: “In particular, exhibitors should not openly display sexualized images, activities, or other material, although this content may be kept out of sight and offered based on a customer’s inquiry, in keeping with the Indecent Display (Controls) Act 1981. Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment.” If there’s a bimbo on the cover of your book, hide her under the table. Make sure your neckline isn’t too low. Update: This part of the CoC has changed. See my new post.

This con isn’t on my list for 2024, regardless of these rules; two European trips in a year would be too much for me. I’m just observing from a distance and commenting. If I had plans to go, this information wouldn’t change my mind but it would affect what I did there. I’d avoid talking with strangers and stick with people I know, and I’d be quick to play the “Leave me alone” card.

Late addition (May 16, 2024): When I wrote this, it didn’t grab my notice that the code refers not to “marginalized people’s safety” but to “marginalized peoples’ safety.” The position of the apostrophe is important. Giving a high priority to the safety of people who have been marginalized makes some sense, since they could be in more danger than others. But in talking about the safety of marginalized peoples, the Glasgow concom is talking about group membership rather than risk. The priority of a con member’s safety depends not on whether that person is at risk, but on what “people” that person belongs to. This suggests that if you report being intimidated or threatened, their first question will be “What people do you belong to?” If you can’t list a “marginalized” one, then your concern becomes a lower priority.