Advantages Of Platforming And Free Speech

Free speech is important. It enables humans to openly express any thoughts, opinions, or ideas one may have without the risk of government oppression or censorship. Social media act as platforms that promote free speech, as social media allow any person’s thoughts, opinions, or ideas to be shared with the world at the simple click of an “enter” key. However, there do exist limitations to free speech when threats or hate speech become involved. In these instances, ramifications and legal actions can be taken as a means of combating verbal threats and hateful statements. With this in mind, the Elonis v. United States sase is of particular notoriety due to its exemplification of both the role in which social media play in free speech, as well

In “Free Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance” (Medium, February 6, 2017), Julia Serano addresses the flaws in activists’ Richard Spencer’s and Milo Yiannopoulos’ actions against freedom of speech, as well as the flaws in free speech absolutism. The author explains how free speech absolutism cannot fully be achieved because of the laws that protect our privacy, and how free speech absolutism can only make matters worse. Because there are no laws against Milo Yiannopoulos campaigning for actor/comedian Leslie Jones to delete her personal website, people are allowed to use their freedom of speech to take away that same right from others. Serano explains how she was scared to express herself as transgender during her childhood because she witnessed people being harassed for their identity. The author calls this the paradox of free speech. Another paradox she highlights is the paradox of tolerance. If those who are tolerant do not defend against the intolerant, then the tolerant will one day disappear. Serano believes everyone should be a moderator. People who believe in an open and positive, free speaking society should collectively stand up against those that are intolerant to opposing ideologies, and possibly even incarcerate those who cannot present reason for their beliefs. This, however, is where the line must be drawn. Serano is wrong to believe that free speech absolutism will cause intolerance of fester and one day erupt, and that the minority should be treated like

universities following each allegation of racism, despite his willingness to debate the students who attended his presentations. The demonstrations which sought to ‘no-platform’ Yiannopoulos also reveals an interesting dichotomy in the sphere of U.S. politics: despite freedom of speech being momentously important to the U.S constitution, members of the progressive left utilise the notion that Yiannopoulos is a white supremacist to justify refusing him a platform in which he can cultivate and debate his ideology; in short, protestors are denying themselves the opportunity to defeat him in debate on the basis of his purported

The use of social media from the left and right are noticeably different. Brooker and Barnett (2017) observed that those who were drawn to social justice politics tended to use insults as opposed to engaging in a serious debate. This itself has created a stigma for socialists who don’t support and even oppose identity politics, but are associated with those using identity politics, similar to how the new and alt-right are often stated to be one of the same. And it is identity politics that’s arguably drawing the forgotten people to these alternative sources of information and humour. The ideology of political correctness is identified by young people as censorship and suppression, comparable to totalitarianism. It is for this reason why the new and alt-right have made significant inroads in the social media space. Traditional media repressed what those on the right call freedom of speech, thus forcing individuals to search other places, predominantly online where their voices, concerns and opinions can be

It is argued that no platforming is not a genuine form of activism because there is no true harm occurring, rather a form of discomfort coming out of a disagreement with the topic. It is also said that subjective experience is exclusive and consequently is “easily exploitable”1 because there is no way to adjudicate since a minority groups claims cannot be understood fully by another group. No platforming not only doesn’t allow greater exposure to alternative views, but it “presumes absolute knowledge” of right and wrong. Lastly, it is argued that the purpose of a platform is to “allow for others to question the ideas put forth…it is through questioning that [society] determine[s] legitimacy”1 for itself. Therefore, no platforming “stymies social justice”1, is both “counter-productive and incoherent”1, and insultingly underestimates a student’s ability to think critically to determine what they define as

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and other social networking sites from the internet may look like just another platform to post pictures on, to share the things a person has done, or to connect to friends and families by the usage of messenger applications. However, these are not the only activities that can be done by utilizing the power of the social media and the internet. The mode of communication and interaction between the people all over the globe are now significantly being transformed by social media technologies (Edosomwan et al., 2011). These technologies have also paved the way to a different form of activism which is digital activism.

Currently, the political landscape around the world is in an upheaval. Populist movements manifested in the Trump presidency and Brexit convey the disconnect between the government and its citizens. These events also shine a light on some prejudicial views that are more common than some may have thought. In this climate, is no-platforming now more necessary than ever, or is refusing to hear ideas deemed hateful and offensive one of the reasons we reached this point in our politics? Is no-platforming a legitimate tool of activism, or an attack on free speech?

The topic of free speech and expression continues to make the headlines. Popular topics of the day range from the legalization of gay marriage; to the practices of Planned Parenthood; and the disruptive Black Lives Matter movement. A commonality between all these movements is the media driven bias that only one view is legitimate and the other as intolerant. This view clearly forgets that the ability to offend is the very definition of free speech and expression, a gift of free will. It evolved as a result of decades of oppression and violence, and is recorded in many governing documents of the Free World. This positive evolution has achieved actual change; however, today this hard fought battle

For what reason should one’s opinions and ideas matter over another’s? A grand stage to be free to say whatever you want, as enticing as that sounds, leads to a lot of different complications. Fascinated by those on a platform, making their message more alarming and imperative. Platforming is viewed as a strategy that asserts a person or organization should be given a platform to speak within a certain social space. An invitation to be heard, indicating that there is value in what is said. This is becoming an issuing in several places and institutions, as the idea of censorship should be taking into consideration to protect people. A debate was held where to sides were argue on the issue; platforming. They were all given a platform to allow

When confronted with viewpoints opposing their own, humans tend to seek refuge. They find it, relaxing with like-minded friends, free from discourse. Some advance as far as to suggest conflicting ideas be eradicated. One side must argue against an imaginary foe, simply to pacify the public, with any other ideas exiled. Should identity politics rule? Should trigger warnings conquer facts and humanity bow down to political correctness? Is ANTIFA peaceful, or hypocritical? At the heart of the debate, censorship and political correctness.

To these theorists, online hate speech is a danger to human rights, as it fosters a fear based climate for the victims. Additionally, when white supremacists and other hate groups target minorities online, it rarely remains just “free speech.” In these cases, the internet acts as a medium for individuals to gather support from others, and this often results in encouragement for action. When a right to free speech results in minorities having to stay in their homes in fear of being assaulted, we must ask ourselves who’s speech is free. Speech free from government regulation benefits white supremacists and attackers because it allows them to come together to form communities which is far more dangerous than an

“‘I disapprove of what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it’… 73% [of the 1,000 Americans surveyed by Rasmussen Reports in 2017] agree with [this] famous line by the 18th century French author Voltaire” (“73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For” 1). Of the Americans surveyed, 85% “think giving people the right to free speech is more important than making sure no one is offended by what others say [while] 8% think it’s more important to make sure no one gets offended” (“73% Say Freedom of Speech Worth Dying For” 1). So which holds greater importance, to possess complete and unregulated freedom of speech or to minimize how often people become offended by the words or actions of others?

The argument in favour of no-platforming often goes that we envisage free speech as an open

No platforming entails denying a person or organization a platform to spread their ideologies due to them conflicting the norms in society. No platforming is a strategy used by activists in order to protest their disagreement with contradictory groups. With the rise of social justice prevalent in our society, it targets people who are seen as violent or dangerous to the public, and revoke their platform. Often, the argument of no platforming is rebutted with the notion of free speech, which has value because once all ideas are shared, they can either be exposed as wrong, but if not they could be strengthened through debate. Through this essay, it will acknowledge both arguments present in the video with supporting evidence from the speakers, and discuss whether the article was convincing or not.

The freedom to be able to express your own opinion is an ideology that is supported by many, however the act of promoting harm or hate is where freedom should be restricted. Freedom of speech is a right for citizens of many countries, but these citizens may agree or disagree on what is allowed to be expressed. Many people share the belief that they can say anything they want because their freedom entitles them to express any opinion they would like. In contrast, many people believe that you shouldn’t be able to say anything you want and that there should be restrictions on the type of things that you can say. In the novel On Liberty by John Stuart Mill, Mill argues that freedom of speech should be limited if and when it is harming other people in the process. Mill explains this argument by stating that silencing an unpopular opinion is unjustifiable because in order to successfully express your opinion, you must listen to the criticism. I agree with Mill’s position regarding freedom of speech based on the fact that he doesn’t support hate speech, and that there should be reasonable limits on freedom of speech in order to have an ideal democratic society. This essay will outline the justifications for Mill’s argument surrounding freedom of speech, the limitations that Mill believes should be set on freedom of speech as well as the assumptions that his argument depends on, and finally my personal viewpoint on Mill’s argument. Freedom of speech is a right that should be guaranteed to every citizen around the world, however when this speech negatively affects or harms other humans in the process, it is thereby considered hate speech which must be condemned.