No Platforming?

No Platforming:

"the practice of refusing someone an opportunity to make their ideas or beliefs known publicly, because you think these beliefs are dangerous or unacceptable"

Bearing in mind that legislation already exists to curb speech that will likely incite actual violence and disorder, where do you stand on no platforming of individuals or organisations whose perspectives are merely unpopular, or considered 'off colour' within the context of the current Zeitgeist, or 'Overton window' ?

This really refers to colleges and universities, where the student union (UK) has had a policy of no platforming since the early 70's, but in recent years the list of perspectives deemed off limits seems to have grown. The Oxford Union - to its credit - has allowed some very controversial speakers to address the student audience; Steve Bannon, Kate Hopkins, Tommy Robinson, and for the students to challenge their views in Q&A, but some colleges have banned speakers for relatively minor social faux pas's. Germaine Greer being a good example, barred from addressing the student union at Cardiff University in Wales, UK, for expressing the belief that a trans woman is not an 'actual' woman, and receiving death threats for expressing the view.

Regardless of your specific views on contentious issues, do you support or reject the principle of no platforming?

^ I mostly agree. The era of free speech (or much less restrictive speech) ended with the advent of safe spaces. But there have always been caveats. You couldn't yell fire in a crowded theater if there really wasn't one.

Edited by SteveG - March 03 2020 at 10:05

Whatever happened to "I hate what you say but I defend your right to say it"?

Easy Money wrote: For some, giving nazis freedom to speak satisfies their "ivory towered" idealistic notions of free speech for everyone, while to others, depending on their race and religion, giving nazis freedom to speak can lead to murder and mayhem for their family for generations to come.

Easy Money wrote: SteveG wrote: Whatever happened to "I hate what you say but I defend your right to say it"? I wouldn't expect a nazi to defend anything except your right to say yes sir.

Let me restate my post with emphasis added: What ever happed to "I hate what you say but I defend your right  to say it"?

The great poet Percy Bysshe Shelley was expelled from Oxford University, because of his essay entitled "The Necessity of Atheism". Nowadays such a thing wouldn't probably result in expulsion, yet it is also thanks to such courageous figures.

In Turkey, such things are very complicated. Even if we are not -deemed- a free country, we randomly encounter appalling, unacceptable, blasphemous etc. statements; or come across revolutionary utterances and bold people going against the grain, in a positive context.

Edited by Shadowyzard - March 03 2020 at 13:35

Mirakaze wrote: SteveG wrote: Whatever happened to "I hate what you say but I defend your right to say it"? I used to be of this opinion but I no longer believe that a society can ensure safety to all of its inhabitants when deliberate hate speech of any kind is allowed to spread unchecked, and in this regard I support Karl Popper's stance that tolerant societies have a right of self-preservation against acts of intolerance. Direct incitements to violence and threats should obviously not be allowed but I think there should also be laws against more insidious means of hatemongering. To name an obvious example, I live in a country where denying the Holocaust is forbidden by law and I think that's a good thing because I frankly don't believe that anyone claiming to be a Holocaust denier actually believes a thing that they're saying and that what they actually believe is that the Holocaust did happen and that it was a great thing, but of course they can't say that so instead they try to disguise their ideology under a palatable veneer of scepticism and critical thinking, when in reality their only goal is to smear and dehumanize the Jewish community to the point where persecution and eventually genocide becomes socially acceptable again. My view is biased because I am a member of a particular group that is in current times subject to a disproportionate amount of vilification and abuse (to the point where I'm afraid to express and present myself the way I would like in most contexts), but I do not hold the illusion that hateful people have honourable intentions or that their ideology contributes something of value to society.

No, with caviar and a bottle of champagne. Voted for no, with caveats.

I'd describe myself as a moral situationalist, and would take various university incidents on something of a case-by-case basis.

I like the sunlight is the best disinfectant concept. When you make expressing ideas illegal, or very taboo, this can make them all the more appealing, and render things more conspiratorial. "Hear the truth that THEY don't want YOU to hear". Pushing people underground can be very dangerous, and resentments will build, and it can create more of an "us vs. them" mentality. Such people can find networks or go lone-wolf. Better to know they exist commonly, and how great a concern should one be rather than pushing it under the carpet.

In university establishments, I like the idea that bad ideas, good ideas, neutral ideas and all sorts of ideas can be challenged. Challenging what you believe is important to me. Ridicule, including self-ridicule, is important.
I don't believe that educational institutions need give everyone a platform certainly not, but great care should be taken with de-platforming. Sometimes it is a security issue, sometimes it's because a minority of very vocal students complain very loudly. And in various cases, I believe those students are ignorant. I don't like to see those organisers psuhing for de-platformg, with decorum and according to strict guidelines, get a chance to formally debate those they wish to de-platform or at least ask questions. If the ideas of those they despise are unreasonable., they can help to expose that.

At one Canadian university (such incidents have happened multiple times including at my alma mater) they had a controversial speaker (controversial because of something he wrote years ago). A group of students had tried to de-platform, but the speaking engagement was not stopped. Those students were permitted to exercise "their free speech" by banging gongs, shouting swear words, and chanting while the speaker was at the podium. I think the students should not have been given that platform, and if such things happened and they were told that they were not allowed to, suspended or expelled. It was so crass and juvenile, and it was disrespectful to everyone in the audience. Such a thing should not have been permitted.

In Canada, I have been quite concerned about our hate speech laws, and amendments, and some local incidents.. Sometimes these are pushed by very vocal minorities who can't seem to tolerate any criticism. That said, we do need various laws that govern speech, including defamation and libel laws, when people incite violence, or create danger and health risks by shouting fire in a crowded urinal....

Edited by Logan - March 03 2020 at 17:50

Tapfret wrote: Atavachron wrote: Lenny Bruce was famous for, among other things, saying "Don't take away my words".   He had a difficult career, in and out of court, and had a sad end.   I support his right to having expressed himself honestly.   He wouldn't have been as funny or innovative without it. That said, the notion that words can't hurt you is just incorrect.   Words can hurt, destroy, slander, even kill, and the weight they carry must be recognized.   The pen is mightier than the sword, and words ~ like power ~ should be wielded with great responsibility and caution. Don't you mean the mouth? Who uses a pen any more?

I think the whole problem of free speech is that people can't shut up.