Thread by @sundersays

'No platforming' can be used excessively, damaging the reputation of universities.

People who claim to be against 'No Platforming' in principle are rarely against it in all cases & on all boundaries, for all speech that is legal, whatever the content.

To be against 'No Platforming' in principle must apply it all these 'free speech within law' cases
- Virulent anti-semitism, within law
- Holocaust denial
- Islamist extremism, that stays within law
- Overt racism, eg deport all the blacks
- Advocating legalisation of paedophilia

The most vocal advocates of 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' often flip to the opposite position when it comes to hosting of extreme Islamist speakers promoting homophobia, misogyny or arguing against democracy - and would oppose university societies platforming such speakers

Fair to say universities should not host speakers whose values are strongly opposed to the values and principles on which free speech depends - far right and anti-semitic racists, extreme Islamists.

There is a problem is of over-stretch, but few would have no boundaries at all.

If the Oxford Union were to invite David Irving to speak on 'the holocaust: the truth', I think everybody accepts it is part of my free speech to tweet, write a letter or protest it? So it is free speech to argue that it was a crass error to invite such a person

The event might go ahead. Or the organisation might cancel it - after eg letters of protest, editorials in the Jewish Chronicle, Times and Guardan criticising the decision.

If minds are changed (by argument, not intimidation), has there been any loss of free speech, or not?

I don't see a significant loss of free speech in this hypothetical decision to reverse a (mistaken) invite to David Irving,

But I do think there was a substantive loss of free speech when the play 'Behzti' was cancelled, after protests about it.

What's the difference?

I see 2 important types
1) Quality/nature of speech act being defended.
2) Nature of protest
[ie, is it persuasion or intimidation]

Both of these are qualitative - somewhat subjective. But I am sceptical a simple [rather relativist] championing of 'all legal speech' holds up.

The 'platforming' debate today focuses on universities but is more important on social media platforms.

I think very few people take and apply consistently something like: 'all legal speech should be allowed on Facebook/Twitter'. I think it would be wrong in practice & principle

David Irving was invited to speak (on 'free speech for extremists') at the Oxford Union in 2001, but then cancelled after a vote to withdraw the invitation.

He was invited - and spoke - in 2007

I doubt he would be invited again in 2020

2001 report
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education…