I feel rather strongly that this article is lacking in scepticism, particularly when considered within the context of this Wiki's purpose. Now I do understand that this is not an encyclopedia and no NPOV is required. However there are some points I would like to address:-
" Individual colleges' student unions can decide to ban other speakers should they wish with internal votes. A democratic process of expressing freedom of speech and expression. Imagine that."
- There is an assumption that because Student Unions decide through democratic processes who is to be No Platformed and who isn't, that this is somehow representative of students on campus as a whole (at least that's what I read into it). This is not so. The vast majority of student populations do not belong to any Student Union at all. What gives Unions the right to decide who gets an audience and who doesn't? Which leads me to the next point:-
"Ignoring a person (or group) also means that no refutations are offered, and some have criticized the action as a form of censorship and a violation of their freedom of speech, when in reality, their message has been heard by protesters and venue holders, and they have decided not to extend the speakers the right to an audience that has already rejected them."
- Who decides the audience has rejected this or that speaker? The Student Unions? University authorities? Saying that an audience has rejected a speaker seems rather authoritarian. Sure a majority within a given Union might decide they don't like a speaker or their POV and decide democratically on No Platform, but by what right do they decide that the rest of the audience (ie everyone not in that particular Union) has rejected the speaker or their POV? I've been to many talks at Universities and I'm not even a student. Universities are public institutions, not the playthings of Student Unions (regardless of how representative a given Union is of the student population as a whole).
The protests are generally meant to raise awareness of the target's views and not a call to blanket ban them; the reaction from many protested is arguably censorial itself, considering they're refusing to acknowledge the right to demonstrate opposition to their views. Apparently, they believe that their speech is more free than others'.
- Ok, regardless of my views, this first sentence is a little hard to follow and should be rewritten. If I understand correctly however, this is essentially saying that the "Protested" (your right wingers, extremists, BNPers, EDLers, w/e) demonstrate "arguably censorial" reactions. In what way? By refusing to acknowledge the rights of their opponents to oppose them? What does that even mean? Does it mean they are ignoring their opposition or ignoring their rights? This could use some elaboration. I personally find the Animal Farm quote at the end extremely hypocritical considering the use of No Platform to prevent speakers from access to an audience (an audience which no individual Student Body has any authority over).
"No platforming" as adopted so far is not a violation of freedom of expression rights; there is no right to have a ready audience.
- True, there is no such thing as a "right to an audience". But there is also no right by any Student Body to presume to speak for the entire student population, no matter how "democratic" their internal processes within their limited membership may be.
To summarise: the main issue I have is of Student Unions deciding which speakers are allowed a platform without any authority to do so and without a broad consensus from the majority of the student population. I'm going to hold off on making any changes until someone can present some counterpoints. As you can tell, I am against the No Platform policy and freely admit my own bias. However I feel that the position I have adopted has been through rational analysis of the situation. If someone wishes to dispute this, please do so. --Etak (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree. I started the article in that fashion, but was overturned by the majority rule here, called mobocracy. See my criticism in the archive. ~ Aneris ✻ 21:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
What gives Unions the right to decide who gets an audience and who doesn't?- Etak
- The university grants the student unions those rights. If one does not like it, one should petition the university to change its bylaws/policy/permissions/whatever.
Who decides the audience has rejected this or that speaker? The Student Unions? University authorities?- Etak
- Either/or. So yes.
but by what right do they decide that the rest of the audience (ie everyone not in that particular Union) has rejected the speaker or their POV?- Etak
The "right" is whatever power is granted to the student unions by the administration of the university.
By refusing to acknowledge the rights of their opponents to oppose them?- Etak
- That's not a right, friend.
But there is also no right by any Student Body to presume to speak for the entire student population, no matter how "democratic" their internal processes within their limited membership may be.- Etak
- It's not a right; it's a power granted to them by the university.
- Not to put too fine a point to it, unless you want universities nationalized and forced to allow everyone, you kind of need to get used to this. Or win court cases saying universities can't do this, which is not likely to happen. Also, you're rather confusing powers and rights. The only rights you have are those granted to you legally by the jurisdiction; these are modified by statute, regulation, and caselaw. There is nothing preventing university administrations or student bodies empowered by them from doing this. So unless you want to legislate otherwise, you're out of luck.
To summarise: the main issue I have is of Student Unions deciding which speakers are allowed a platform without any authority to do so and without a broad consensus from the majority of the student population.- Etak
- Is it a requirement to have broad consensus? I certainly don't consider that necessary. --Castaigne2 (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for clearing some things up for me, particularly powers vs rights. When I was referring to "acknowledge the rights of their opponents to oppose them?" I was in fact referring to the article declaring that the "Protested" are the ones refusing these rights, not the No Platformers/Neo-progessives or w/e, which would rather invalidate the article's point if it isn't a right as you say, hence why I think some elaboration or clearing up in this section could be helpful.
- Considering that Student Unions (which are empowered by Uni authorities, as you have corrected me here) are not representative of the entire student population, I do still find it authoritarian of them to decide amongst their own membership who is given a platform and who isn't.
- Now to add an authoritarian and somewhat hypocritical twist of my own - yes actually, I do think Unis should be nationalised and complete openness to all POVs enforced.
- Having had a scroll through the Archive I can see that I'm beating a dead horse here. I think the article could be more clear and concise, however I will keep my own biases out of it. Thanks for replies.
- --Etak (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
A British Vice-Chancellor speaks out against no-platforming
"'Politically correct students are killing free speech' says University of Nottingham vice chancellor." The Times (paywalled) or Nottingham Post. Could be worth mentioning. ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 16:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a 'turd' quality ranking? These experiences ruffle the feathers of those whose approach to liberalism is out-of-step with the current mood of campus activists.... Who died and put them in charge of One True Liberalism? - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 15:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well I approve, if that's what you're asking. Hmmph (talk) 01:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
"In most liberal democracies, the right to publish your own newspaper, and the right to speak in a public space where speaking is permitted, are inalienable."
The radio frequencies being the exception. Governments have a habit of applying no-platform policies to anything sent to non-subscription receivers in moving vehicles. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Conservative no platform
Just dropping this here as it's not enough for a full section yet, but this sounds an awful lot like "no platforming" to me:
Let's be real. Lying media liars will never hold themselves accountable for anything. When they defame and conspire, DISRUPT them. SUE them. BOYCOTT them. And for heaven's sake, stop giving media credentials/access to radical political operatives masquerading as "reporters."
Which sounds more than a little hypocritical to me, since Conservatives are always raging about evil leftists disrupting people's free speech. I'm not sure if this is a singular example or if there are more around; just happened to come across this. Martin (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)