Arguments Against No Platforming

The main argument of the for no-platforming side as to why no-platforming is legitimate is because it gives a voice to peoples who would be otherwise silenced, disregarded or oppressed. They argue that no-platforming should be practiced because it gives equal opportunity for everyone to speak and defend their views. Chi Chi Shi makes it clear that no speech is unaffected by our society’s power structures and there is no even ground on which, “people can debate freely as purely rational, un-interested agents.”1 Teammate Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh goes on to explain the difference between the freedom of speech and platforming by stating that, “the right to speak is not to be equated with the right to a public platform.”2 A supporting argument for the legitimacy of

“Free Inquiry? Not on Campus” by John Leo is an important essay that shows exactly how important it is to protect people's political views and opinions. In Leo's essay, he elaborates how times have changed and how we live in more of a liberal left-wing society and because of this everyone has to be more politically correct. Leo talks about the social change universities and colleges on how they used to promote free speech, but now are more like the speech police telling us what's opinions you should have on any given subject and any other opinion is considered wrong. Leo gives an example of this and writes “in October 2007, for instance, a student mob stormed a Columbia University stage, shutting down speeches by two members of the Minutemen, an anti-illegal immigration group.The students shouted they have no right to

In this paper I will analyze the arguments presented in Caroline West’s article, “Words That Silence? Freedom of Express and Racist Hate Speech.” Here West probes what is meant by free speech and in so doing, identifies three dimensions of speech from which the value of free speech derives. These are production and distribution, comprehension, and consideration. Her major premise is that absent requirements of comprehension or consideration, free speech lacks the value it is generally accorded. West argues that allowing the production and distribution of racist hate speech has a silencing effect on, not only the production and distribution of speech by racial minorities, but the comprehension and consideration of their speech as well. She concludes that this silencing may have a net effect of diminishing free speech.

Opposers to limitations on the First Amendment might say that we should not silence the people who have differing opinions than us, but we should challenge them. We should have the right to an open discussion where people can have whatever opinion they want as long as it follows the current guidelines of the First Amendment. The First Amendment relies on counter speech in hopes that “good will overpower the bad.”

Free speech is the backbone that holds democracy together.  Without a free speech, ideas would not be challenged, governments would not be kept in check, and citizens would not be free.  John Stuart Mill said once that, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person then he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”( Roleff, 21). The right to free speech is essential to “egalitarian democracy,”(Tsesis) however, this right is not absolute and must be limited in certain situations.

I often asked myself why it's so easy for me to talk about a large number of social issues with my close friends and family, yet when it comes to voicing my opinions to others, I am wary. It seems as though I'm only comfortable with voicing my opinions about controversial social issues to those who also share the same views as I do. Rather than stepping out of my comfort zone to talk about these issues directly to those who oppose my opinions, I retreat to instead reading about the opposing sides. In retrospect, I've noticed that discussing issues with those who agree with you is like “preaching to the choir.” I believe that being involved in an open dialogue with those who have different opinions from my own is a much more effective way to induce progressive thought. In attempting to discover a reason for why this may be the case, I cannot help but think that it is in part due to my upbringing. My mother has always been very reserved when it comes to discussing controversial issues with others. In addition, she would

In those cases, we must prioritize the inclusivity of our community. Unfortunately, hearing bigoted comments is not a new experience to marginalized groups; therefore, they provide no learning opportunities, and no chance to establish common ground. However, there are some speakers who may come from a place of somewhat valid concern and not pure hatred. Hearing why they think the way they do and having the ability to challenge those thoughts will be very meaningful for both sides of the argument. Furthermore, there are some speakers whose messages can be easily challenged, and in fact they should be immediately challenged through offering alternative points of view. If we fail to do so, we may lose the chance of changing someone’s mind who might deem that speaker’s perspective to be valid. For example, a popular controversial speaker who has been denied the right to speak on multiple campuses is Milo Yiannopoulos. He has a show in which he takes questions from his audience (who are almost all conservative) and responds to them in a subjective and biased

Many people are afraid to speak up for what they believe in because people might think they are crazy. Some people think that no one will listen to them because their just another person. But my question is how will you feel if someone take your voice away? The first amendment gives us the right to express ourselves through our voice. So if you don't express yourself you would be living in silence that will never be discovered. An example of people that speak up for what they believe are protester because they are not afraid to speak up and out when they have an concern about a situation in today's society. They speak on anything because if their not getting the answers or resolution to their problem they seek the people to listen and bring this up to other people so they

The point of free speech is to bounce around multiple ideas and determine which ones we want to uphold as a society. However, as Charles Vaughan puts it, “there is no circumstance in which one can No Platform and leave open the possibility that the speech in question might be right” 4. If we are shutting down ideas before they can be shared, that means whoever controls the platform essentially chooses what the people can hear, as if the No Platformers have some sort of total knowledge of right and wrong. This side puts forwards many good arguments, including the fact that giving someone a platform is not legitimizing what they have to say. Also, by No Platforming too often, it sets a weak precedent that can be abused later on.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant if you want an idea to go away use your speech to tell people about it. There have been multiple recent examples of violent protests keeping people away from speeches, from websites, and from rallies. The worst part is that this hurts everyone, it hurts the speaker by denying them their human right to think differently but it also hurts the protester. It hurts the protester because they are denying themselves the opportunity to test new ideas to change themselves, to better themselves, and if nothing else to improve their critical thinking. I would not be the person I am today if I didn’t give new ideas a chance. This matters to me, it mattered to the founding fathers, and it should matter to you. There is no hope for academia, for the people, and for thought if we do not stand together as a country and fight not just for ourselves but for each other. While I can't compare the current situation to the holocaust I believe the famous quote by Martin Niemoller is still incredibly relevant “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out Because I was not a

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

Lucia Valdivia is an assistant professor of English and Humanities at Reed College. In her article, she talks about how “the right to speak freely is not the same as the right to rob others of their voices.” I agree because, ultimately, everyone believes they are fighting for the right cause, so silencing the other party's voice means we must silence all parties voices.

“Today, the way we talk about politics is heated, to say the least. Many political discussions devolve into name-calling and cherry-picked numbers from both sides of the aisle. And almost all of those heated discussions take place online. A topic that is frequently brought up in our political discourse today is marginalized groups — and for good reason. ”1

It is fair to say that this debate has opened my eyes to the idea of no-platforming across numerous institutions. I was always one to think that everyone should have the right to express their ideas and beliefs and should be given a platform to do so as long as no threats or hate speeches are uttered. No-platforming is a growing practice often seen at various institutions with cases that platforming can cause harm. Harm; a term so vague, that is often interpreted differently by everyone, a problem we have with platforming. How can one determine what is harmful to all? In the society, we live in today all claims of harm must be treated equally or with that comes conflict. Seeing as, harm is subjective same could be said about platforming, an

Every time someone is silenced, society is robbed of the right to hear a dissenting opinion. Mills argues that because dissenting opinions most often contain at least a portion of truth, and that “the general or prevailing opinion is rarely or never the whole truth,” (Mills) the entirety of the group or society can benefit by listening to the dissenting opinion. Even in cases where a speaker is promulgating uncouth ideas, it is still beneficial for individuals to be exposed to unconventional thinking. It raises the important question “How do I know that I know this, except that I've been told it my whole life and never heard anything else? What would I do if I met a holocaust denier? How can I prove that it really happened? Am I sure global warming is real? I know its supposed to be, but here's someone who says its all made up.” One cannot take refuge in the false security of consensus and hope that with whatever he or she thinks, they will be okay because they are in the safety of the