Should universities practice no-platforming?

In these video highlights for Free Speech Debate, panelists debate whether “no-platforming” ought to have a place in modern universities. Student discussants included Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh, Barnaby Raine, Monica Richter, Damien Shannon, Chi Chi Shi, and Charles Vaughan.

Does no-platforming constitute an attack on free speech? How can we best address the subjective and objective harms caused by free expression? To what extent can targeted censorship be used as a legitimate tool of activism? Student panelists Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh, Barnaby Raine, Monica Richter, Damien Shannon, Chi Chi Shi, and Charles Vaughan engage in heated debate over these questions in various video excerpts from the ‘To Speak or Not to Speak: Should Universities Practice “No-Platforming”?’ event hosted at All Souls College, Oxford, on November 19, 2015.

Video Highlights

00:00:00
Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh and the right to a platform as protected speech
00:00:00
Nigel Warburton on intent and hate speech
00:00:00
Monica Richter on no-platforming as an illegitimate tool of activism
00:00:00
Barnaby Raine discusses power, objective harm, and no-platforming

Published on: March 11, 2016 with No Comments Print

Leave a comment in any language Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Highlights

Swipe left to browse all of the highlights.

				
								Peeing on Pétain
							
Eric Heinze examines the boundary between civil disobedience and desecration.  

								What is ‘dehumanising’ speech?
							
Eric Heinze provocatively argues that no-platformers need to look into the mirror and examine their own blind spots. 

								Glasnost! Nine ways Facebook can make itself a better forum for free speech and democracy
							
Free Speech Debate co-authors an Oxford-Stanford report on Facebook.

								‘Lenin-fall’: free speech and the politics of memory in Ukraine
							
O.T. Jones argues that the Ukrainian state should not restrict open historical debate but use its 'expressive' powers to foster a nuanced understanding of the past.

								Are you sitting comfortably? How safe spaces became dangerous
							
We must distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate safe spaces, argues Eric Heinze.

								Don’t blame news polarisation on the internet…it’s not the technology, stupid!
							
The internet does not guarantee polarised news, argues Richard Fletcher.

								Bridging the deep digital divide in India
							
Only 17% of rural India has internet access. But citizen journalism is giving voice to minorities says Arpita Biswas.

								Russia: ‘The Church has an enemy in every home.’ It’s television.
							
Helen Haft explains how the Orthodox Church has eroded freedom of the media and lobbied for the 2013 law against offending religious feelings.

								Are we losing the media we need for democracy?
							
Timothy Garton Ash discusses the importance of and whether we are losing the media for democracy at the General Editors Network Summit 2017 in Vienna.

								The internet alone will not set Africa free
							
Iginio Gagliardone explores the surprising technopolitics of two competing visions of the internet, US and Chinese, in Ethiopia.

								Freedom of speech in Japan and the Designated Secrets Law
							
Arthur Stockwin explains the four main areas where free speech is under threat in Japan.

								Israel, no-platforming – and why there’s no such thing as ‘narrow exceptions’ to campus free speech
							
Eric Heinze argues that it is contradictory to the principles of free speech to criticise the Israeli ambassador to Britain online and then no-platform him at a university talk.

Free Speech Debate is a research project of the Dahrendorf Programme for the Study of Freedom at St Antony's College in the University of Oxford. www.freespeechdebate.ox.ac.uk