No-platforming: speech, or a restriction on speech?

Gadarene · Jan 30, 2015

There have been a few cases that I've noticed in the news recently of debates or public addressed being called off because of protests. There have been a couple of university debates here in the UK called off because of this, in the US so far as I am aware Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher have also had campus appearances cancelled.

Does this constitute a restriction on the freedom of speech?

I quite like this piece on the matter.

?No platform? was once reserved for violent fascists. Now it's being used to silence debate

At the same time, there's a good line from Rosa Luxemburg which goes "Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."

I don't want for anyone to stop proposing that people be no-platformed. However I think it's definitely a big problem and an impingement on freedom of expression if they're taken seriously.

Thoughts?

(Background: I've been doing a lot of thinking since this piece by Jonathan Chait caused a surprising amount of butthurt, even though I think he's both right on the money while also not saying anything particularly original. There seems to be an increasing backlash to political correctness on the left now as well as on the right.

While some of the things he criticises would count as acts of speech, however ill-founded, some of the things he lists, like harassment for criticism of progressive opinions and no-platforming speakers definitely seem to cross that line.

Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag)

Colter · Jan 30, 2015

Gadarene said:
There have been a few cases that I've noticed in the news recently of debates or public addressed being called off because of protests. There have been a couple of university debates here in the UK called off because of this, in the US so far as I am aware Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Bill Maher have also had campus appearances cancelled.

Does this constitute a restriction on the freedom of speech?

I quite like this piece on the matter.

?No platform? was once reserved for violent fascists. Now it's being used to silence debate

At the same time, there's a good line from Rosa Luxemburg which goes "Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters."

I don't want for anyone to stop proposing that people be no-platformed. However I think it's definitely a big problem and an impingement on freedom of expression if they're taken seriously.

Thoughts?

(Background: I've been doing a lot of thinking since this piece by Jonathan Chait caused a surprising amount of butthurt, even though I think he's both right on the money while also not saying anything particularly original. There seems to be an increasing backlash to political correctness on the left now as well as on the right.

While some of the things he criticises would count as acts of speech, however ill-founded, some of the things he lists, like harassment for criticism of progressive opinions and no-platforming speakers definitely seem to cross that line.

Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag)

It's a peculiar phenomenon as of late, Leftist or secular progressives have adopted Islam into their bag of victims in the world who need to be protected from the evil Christian Right-hawks who mischaracterize Islam as violent and at odds theologically with Christianity. Even though the secular left isn't particularly religious, Islam is the enemy of their enemy hence their friend.

Gadarene · Jan 30, 2015

Colter said:
It's a peculiar phenomenon as of late, Leftist or secular progressives have adopted Islam into their bag of victims in the world who need to be protected from the evil Christian Right-hawks who mischaracterize Islam as violent and at odds theologically with Christianity. Even though the secular left isn't particularly religious, Islam is the enemy of their enemy hence their friend.

Well, if it helps, I think they're both rather reprehensible

SoldierOfTheKing · Jan 30, 2015

Most universities in the Western world today are not really universities anymore, because the term historically implied a free exchange of ideas.

Let us stop making the mistake of confusing the mixture of political intoctrination and vocational training that is today's university curriculum with education.

Ana the Ist · Jan 30, 2015

I've never heard of "no-platforming" before this...but I've heard of hate-speech laws so I'm a little familiar with these kinds of ideas on the restriction of free speech. I've always been against it. It's not that I don't understand where it comes from, why these types of restrictions are in the law books of so many European countries. It all goes back to that funny looking German guy who gave good speech and subsequently caused so much damage and suffering for so many. Nobody wants to see his return in some more modern incarnation. I get that...

I just happen to think that creating laws that restrict what people can say regarding their views is a dumb way to go about it. Please, before anyone starts with the whole "what about people advocating violence?!?"...we aren't talking about that. Obviously anyone who is advocating harm against individuals or groups or people in general isn't deserving of the protection of law...they're posing a threat to the lives and health of others and should be treated as such. I'm speaking about the restriction of speech that might simply be considered offensive/bigoted/racist/sexist/etc. Once you head down that road, it's not so much a slippery slope... it's more of a long slow downgrade.

Ideas that people consider offensive change with time. The list of unspeakable subjects will never get shorter...it can only get longer. As tolerance for any view other than tolerance and respect grows less and less...you only decrease the honesty of people in public discourse. That's the real effect here, no one is eliminating these "offensive" views, they're insulating them. You're teaching people to keep these topics behind closed doors where they can grow and spread without anyone seeing it. You're teaching the people who hold those views to lie...lie and become increasingly subtle/subversive until you've managed to get yourself elected/paid.

Offensive views shouldn't be shunned by the government, they should be held up in the light of day for everyone to see and ridicule. They should be allowed to express their opinions, same as anyone else, so we can all see who still clings to their hateful prejudices. By identifying the problem, having a discourse about it, you can show people why a particular view is wrong.

The problem was never the funny looking German man who shouted everyone into agreement with his magical hypnotic powers. The problem was the droves and droves of feeble-minded simps who lacked the necessary education to realize they were being taken for a ride.

Paradoxum · Jan 31, 2015

I'm not sure it's right to protest so much that someone can't speak. There may be exceptions... it's not something I've thought through fully.

I've been uneasy about people protesting the Sun newspaper showing nude women on page 3. It doesn't sit well with my feelings on free expression.

Perhaps the Sun is so unprofessional it shouldn't be called a magazine, not a newspaper (no offence to magazines).

Colter said:
It's a peculiar phenomenon as of late, Leftist or secular progressives have adopted Islam into their bag of victims in the world who need to be protected from the evil Christian Right-hawks who mischaracterize Islam as violent and at odds theologically with Christianity. Even though the secular left isn't particularly religious, Islam is the enemy of their enemy hence their friend.

I don't think secular progressive opinion is a unified as you make it out to be. You have people like Bill Maher who say that Islam is much worse than Christianity. And you have people in the middle too.

SoldierOfTheKing said:
Most universities in the Western world today are not really universities anymore, because the term historically implied a free exchange of ideas.

You're comfortable applying that broad stereotype to countries other than your own? How do you know this? In what why do they not allow free exchange of ideas?

Let us stop making the mistake of confusing the mixture of political intoctrination and vocational training that is today's university curriculum with education.

My experience of university was that the lecturers didn't push their view on students, and many times didn't give their own view.

Received · Feb 1, 2015

Chomsky makes the point that the newer universities (like from the 70s on) are structured in such a way where free speech areas are severely limited or non-existent. That's definitely a case of restricting freedom of speech, although technically it's restricting the possibility of the freedom of speech rather than the actuality (e.g., stopping someone from speaking when he already is speaking), but for that reason it's much worse given that it indicates a deep institutional (and therefore to some degree cultural) devaluation of freedom of speech. So what is pushing freedom of speech out the door? Political correctness would be one, which is psychologically all about pluralism and the extreme sensitivity people have to being inclusive and respectful of others' opinions. So respect for others' opinions is antagonistic with free speech, because the more free you are the more likely you are to say mean things about things that other people don't like.

Gadarene · Feb 2, 2015

Ana the Ist said:
Please, before anyone starts with the whole "what about people advocating violence?!?"...we aren't talking about that. Obviously anyone who is advocating harm against individuals or groups or people in general isn't deserving of the protection of law...they're posing a threat to the lives and health of others and should be treated as such. I'm speaking about the restriction of speech that might simply be considered offensive/bigoted/racist/sexist/etc.

There seem to have been a number of developments recently, namely the notions of bigoted speech that contains no actual threat being directly equated as "violent speech". There is a mindset (common to people on all sides of the political divide, mind, but it definitely applies here) of taking what I like to call pre-emptive strikes on particular ideas. This idea *might* be misused....so better squelch anyone expressing that idea in any way whatsoever, rather than carefully targeting those who use those ideas to act as a clear and present threat to others.

This is before we get into the problem that not all accusations of bigotry are even sensible or well founded. I've been accused of hating women because I and three other commenters were strongly criticising a female feminist's claim online. And I've lost count of the number of times I've disagreed with feminist talking point du jour and been told that I should "listen to women". Mmhm...including the women who....don't agree with that talking point?

Ideas that people consider offensive change with time. The list of unspeakable subjects will never get shorter...it can only get longer. As tolerance for any view other than tolerance and respect grows less and less...you only decrease the honesty of people in public discourse. That's the real effect here, no one is eliminating these "offensive" views, they're insulating them. You're teaching people to keep these topics behind closed doors where they can grow and spread without anyone seeing it. You're teaching the people who hold those views to lie...lie and become increasingly subtle/subversive until you've managed to get yourself elected/paid.

Offensive views shouldn't be shunned by the government, they should be held up in the light of day for everyone to see and ridicule. They should be allowed to express their opinions, same as anyone else, so we can all see who still clings to their hateful prejudices. By identifying the problem, having a discourse about it, you can show people why a particular view is wrong.

The problem was never the funny looking German man who shouted everyone into agreement with his magical hypnotic powers. The problem was the droves and droves of feeble-minded simps who lacked the necessary education to realize they were being taken for a ride.

Agree completely with this. I suppose this is why I don't want to censor those who propose no-platforming. Thanks to freedom of their speech, they are content to loudly advertise what a threat to that freedom they are, and they can then be targeted for rebuttal.

Gadarene · Feb 2, 2015

Paradoxum said:
I'm not sure it's right to protest so much that someone can't speak. There may be exceptions... it's not something I've thought through fully.

If you think some form of speech is inherently wrong and harmful, then the counterargument I've often heard of "go find another venue to speak at" rings rather hollow. People who find such speech sinful will try and have it shut down irrespective of the venue.

I've been uneasy about people protesting the Sun newspaper showing nude women on page 3. It doesn't sit well with my feelings on free expression.

Ironically, I think this is one of the situations where "but think of the children!" might actually have been the better tack to take.

It would at least be consistent with our other current laws on sexual(ish) nudity -that it should be restricted to people above a particular age. So maybe that in itself justifies the claim that the Sun should reclassified as pornography.

That said, I am glad the no more page 3 campaign has failed so far (and got utterly trolled by Murdoch, first thing he's done that I've actually liked), as their reasons for wanting it gone were basically bogus. There is no evidence to suggest that such material is causing widespread harm to women, other than it offends them (and so what?).

Perhaps the Sun is so unprofessional it shouldn't be called a magazine, not a newspaper (no offence to magazines).

What's funny is the busybodying of one paper by people who have no intention of reading it. I laugh when these Mary Whitehouse types say that when they open a newspaper, they expect to find news.

Firstly, when are prim and proper rightthinking types like them *ever* going to read the Sun?

Secondly....why would you expect to find news in the Sun?

I don't think secular progressive opinion is a unified as you make it out to be. You have people like Bill Maher who say that Islam is much worse than Christianity. And you have people in the middle too.

I think the mindset he describes is largely responsible for Maher and Hirsi Ali being no-platformed, though.

I'm reading a rather good book by Nick Cohen at the moment called You Can't Read This Book, and the first third of it covers censorship as a result of Islamic extremism. He made a great point that one of the greatest failures of western liberalism is the failure to defend free expression and the liberty of the majority of peaceful Muslims at the same time.

Gadarene · Feb 2, 2015

Received said:
Chomsky makes the point that the newer universities (like from the 70s on) are structured in such a way where free speech areas are severely limited or non-existent. That's definitely a case of restricting freedom of speech, although technically it's restricting the possibility of the freedom of speech rather than the actuality (e.g., stopping someone from speaking when he already is speaking), but for that reason it's much worse given that it indicates a deep institutional (and therefore to some degree cultural) devaluation of freedom of speech. So what is pushing freedom of speech out the door? Political correctness would be one, which is psychologically all about pluralism and the extreme sensitivity people have to being inclusive and respectful of others' opinions. So respect for others' opinions is antagonistic with free speech, because the more free you are the more likely you are to say mean things about things that other people don't like.

Ello there

I need to track that Chomsky book down, but I already have two books on US court cases on freedom of expression from FIRE to get through first O_O

Paradoxum · Feb 2, 2015

Gadarene said:
If you think some form of speech is inherently wrong and harmful, then the counterargument I've often heard of "go find another venue to speak at" rings rather hollow. People who find such speech sinful will try and have it shut down irrespective of the venue.

I'd hope that some people would be able to protest in a limited way. Saying that X is wrong, but allow them to speak.

Ironically, I think this is one of the situations where "but think of the children!" might actually have been the better tack to take.

It would at least be consistent with our other current laws on sexual(ish) nudity -that it should be restricted to people above a particular age. So maybe that in itself justifies the claim that the Sun should reclassified as pornography.

I wouldn't call the whole thing pornography, but if it contains some, then that could raise the age to buy it to 18. But do many non-adults generally buy the Sun anyway?

That said, I am glad the no more page 3 campaign has failed so far (and got utterly trolled by Murdoch, first thing he's done that I've actually liked), as their reasons for wanting it gone were basically bogus. There is no evidence to suggest that such material is causing widespread harm to women, other than it offends them (and so what?).

I suppose they might say it's sexist against women.

What's funny is the busybodying of one paper by people who have no intention of reading it. I laugh when these Mary Whitehouse types say that when they open a newspaper, they expect to find news.

Firstly, when are prim and proper rightthinking types like them *ever* going to read the Sun?

Secondly....why would you expect to find news in the Sun?

I kinda get their thinking. They are concerned about sexism, and respect for women. Particularly in a newspaper. I think it's important to consider freedom, etc, too though.

I think the mindset he describes is largely responsible for Maher and Hirsi Ali being no-platformed, though.

Is Maher no-platformed?

I'm reading a rather good book by Nick Cohen at the moment called You Can't Read This Book, and the first third of it covers censorship as a result of Islamic extremism. He made a great point that one of the greatest failures of western liberalism is the failure to defend free expression and the liberty of the majority of peaceful Muslims at the same time.

In what why do you think free expression and the liberty of Muslim has been wrongly restricted?

Gadarene · Feb 3, 2015

Paradoxum said:
I'd hope that some people would be able to protest in a limited way. Saying that X is wrong, but allow them to speak.

Sequential speaking seems at least productive. "You have no right to say this here or ever" for anything other than unequivocal abuse or a direct threat, not so much.

I wouldn't call the whole thing pornography, but if it contains some, then that could raise the age to buy it to 18. But do many non-adults generally buy the Sun anyway?

Good question indeed. Although you don't have to buy the Sun to read the Sun either.

Frankly, when the guys in my year at school got hold of pics involved teh boobs, it wasn't the Sun we managed to get. Usually our stuff was way more top-shelf anyway

I suppose they might say it's sexist against women.

Meh, what isn't allegedly sexist against women these days. I suppose the women taking part in the shots might disagree, so....again, so what?

I kinda get their thinking. They are concerned about sexism, and respect for women. Particularly in a newspaper. I think it's important to consider freedom, etc, too though.

They're concerned about it, but have no cogent argument against it. Both are rather important indeed.

Is Maher no-platformed?

He was by at least one college iirc.

In what why do you think free expression and the liberty of Muslim has been wrongly restricted?

I think people have been both scared to criticise Islam for fear of reprisal, and also scared to encourage "Islamophobes" by criticising Islam.

Inkfingers · Feb 3, 2015

The point of "free speech" (in so much that it can or should exist) is to promote comprehension, and through that to promote peaceful, orderly, stable, cohesive, harmonious, enduring society.

You don't do that by shouting down other views, lying, or using emotive language; and so none of those things deserve protection as somehow being part of "free speech" when they intrinsically oppose it's very purpose.

You do it by calm, reasoned, polite, discussion.

But some people are more interested in ego, and "winning", than in truth and a decent civil society...so they hide under a "free speech" flag of convenience.

No-platforming: speech, or a restriction on speech?

-______-

Member

-______-

Christian Spenglerian

Aggressively serene!

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

True love waits in haunted attics

-______-

-______-

-______-

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!

-______-

Somebody's heretic

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency