Arguments Against No Platforming

The act of no-platforming creates controversy of whether it is a legitimate form of activism to suppress the expression of ideas or an infringement on the freedom of speech. It can be used when a group with no vocal input feels discontent towards a belief. No-platforming can lead to consequences such as a suppression of an idea because a group of people found offense in the views. No-platforming should be used with caution as it can both, prevent harmful ideas from spreading, or suppressing the freedom to express an idea to society.
The question regarding the legitimacy of no-platforming as a tool of activism can be rebutted as seen in the debate for, or against no-platforming. For against no-platforming, it is argued that no-platforming is
exemplified by the Charlotteville riots, white nationalist groups were not allowed to provide input on the remove controversial American Civil War statues. Both parties rallied with the view that “This is the right of every American to be able to peaceably assemble and speak their mind free of intimidation.” 1 which lead to a violent riot as a peaceful assembly to debate the removal of the statues was unable to form. For no-platforming, it is argued that equality when platforming does not exist because the side with more social capital holds more influence than the other side.The inequality when platforming is exemplified when Germaine Greer, a controversial figure due to her transphobic hate speech came to speak at Cardiff University. Greer was given an hour longer than any of her critiques to speak and she had arm guards protecting her and these factors added to her social capital that her peers did not have. Platforming does not equate
Deng3
to the right to free speech as there are laws to prevent harmful and hateful speech. Society values freedom from harm over freedom of speech due to hate laws and this limits free speech.
Pin them down on the ground, and beat them until they pass out. And when they’re passed out, you beat them further; and when they’re on the ground passed out, kick them, break a kneecap, break an elbow, press their hands backwards turn their wrists sideways, start breaking these guys down.” 2 and was charged with promoting hate and advocating violence, not because he is criticizing Islam. With laws that objectively define hate and harm, speakers should use rationality to determine whether an idea is harmful or just controversial.
When Reflecting on the arguments found in debate, for against no-platforming, the point that there are usually failures in distinguishing what is subjectively harmful from what is objectively harmful provides a critical criteria in deciding whether no-platforming is can be legitimate tool. University of Toronto banned white hate groups from rallying on university ground because the rally groups were to be against the values held at the university citing “it is important that we reaffirm our collective and unwavering commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion” 3 .Subjective views are through personal experiences and do not relate to society as