Arguments Against No Platforming

Through decades of peace and struggle, people have fought for the right to speak their opinions freely. People like Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Ghandi who fought for freedom, peace and equality. These men were given a platform, a platform where they could be heard and give their opinions on society and the rights and wrongs within it. Today, the practice of being free to speak one’s opinions on issues of society refers to the concept of Platforming. In recent times, the practice of no platforming has become an issue of controversy. No platforming refers to, the practice of disallowing someone from expressing their ideas through a particular event, social space or website. In this paper, I will be arguing against no platforming. In order

One of the key arguments for no platforming focuses on the issue of power relations for citizens of different social classes and ethnic groups in society. Chi Chi, the first presenter explains that platforms are only given to people of power and authority in society. She argues that there is no neutral ground; whoever holds the power has the last say on issues and at the end of the day when you’re more powerful your ideas are more relevant and heard. Chi Chi gives the example of Germaine Greer and how she is given the right to put down the transgender community. Through this we are able to see how the powerful can attack the disenfranchised and the disempowered without any punishments. On the opposition’s side, the key argument focuses on the issue that there is no clear definition of harm. The true definition of harm fails to differentiate between feelings of discomfort and the incitement to violence and genuine harm. Monica, argues that platforming shouldn’t be shut down solely due to certain individuals, but should work to restrict all forms of hate speech including racial, bigotry and fascist views. She explains that a platform allows for social justice, not only that but it promotes change, brings about social hierarchy and helps bring people of different backgrounds

She fails to ignore all positive outcomes of social justice, for example mental health, education, peace and etc. Instead she uses Germaine Greer’s case as a bias for generalizing what a platform is and how it only negatively impacts society. In the debate, she states “her words take away the personhood of trans people…. Speech can never be totally free…. against defamation libel and hate speech.”3 Chi Chi’s argument is only backed up by this one case, where she is forming a bias opinion of the collective, which can also be referred to the fallacy of the composition. Based on this she makes an error, that what is true for one case is true for all. Barnaby, another member of the for no platforming team, relied heavily on multiple examples to try and prove his point. It also feels like he is jumping from point to point which makes his points less credible. It seems that Barnaby’s key point is that, “There’s a difference between giving someone a platform and allowing them free speech.”4 So, in going with this idea that platforming and free speech are two different things it seems like he is getting down into the very minor details, which personally I found didn’t enhance his argument. He also touches on Monica’s point about subjective experience that it should be about objective