No Platforming is Freedom Speech
Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2021 12:32 pm
In 1974 the NUS (National Union of Students) introduced a policy that no proscribed person or organisation should be given a platform to speak. Following instances where racists were being allowed to recruit students led to anger and ad hoc boycotts; as well as leaving the NUS open to litigation, a policy to shun haters was inplemented.
Over the years the right wing press has tried to castigate unions for "no platforming" people.
Of special interest is the Oxford Union who have refused platforms to many different people. The Daily Mail predictably makes a great effort to call them out every time, often inaccurately
They have built up so much hysteria that many people think the Tatchell, Johnson and Greer have been "banned". WHich is fake news.
Now red-faced rightards of every stamp are chaffing at the bit to protect a breach of freedom of speech.
Recently John Cleese amusingly gave him self a ban from the Oxford Union preemptively since he thinks anyone every having imitated Adolf Hitler is going to be banned automatically.
The debate goes back and forth sometimes the Oxford Union are criticised for giving a platform someties for not.
By and large those that are no platformed get their views fully aired in the media. So one has to ask if the claim of a breach of the right of free speech in really being breeched. What you seldom hear is the facts, why did the Oxford Union no platform someone? The media remain silent on that since they seem more keen on attacking and sensationalising the situation- in fact creating a "situation".
So who to trust? The creamof the UK, the most intelligent and talented young people in the land, the next generation of leaders and shalkers? Do you think they might have their reasons?
Or do you trust the sensation grabbing headline seeking, money making media?
At the end of the day no one can have a right to speak at the OU. You reading this cannot expect to get a platform. Some are not worthy, some are incendiary, some are idiots, some are Trump. For freedom of speech to work the OU needs to be able to make its own choices who to invite, who to listen to, who to grill and who to support.
Over the years the right wing press has tried to castigate unions for "no platforming" people.
Of special interest is the Oxford Union who have refused platforms to many different people. The Daily Mail predictably makes a great effort to call them out every time, often inaccurately
They have built up so much hysteria that many people think the Tatchell, Johnson and Greer have been "banned". WHich is fake news.
Now red-faced rightards of every stamp are chaffing at the bit to protect a breach of freedom of speech.
Recently John Cleese amusingly gave him self a ban from the Oxford Union preemptively since he thinks anyone every having imitated Adolf Hitler is going to be banned automatically.
The debate goes back and forth sometimes the Oxford Union are criticised for giving a platform someties for not.
By and large those that are no platformed get their views fully aired in the media. So one has to ask if the claim of a breach of the right of free speech in really being breeched. What you seldom hear is the facts, why did the Oxford Union no platform someone? The media remain silent on that since they seem more keen on attacking and sensationalising the situation- in fact creating a "situation".
So who to trust? The creamof the UK, the most intelligent and talented young people in the land, the next generation of leaders and shalkers? Do you think they might have their reasons?
Or do you trust the sensation grabbing headline seeking, money making media?
At the end of the day no one can have a right to speak at the OU. You reading this cannot expect to get a platform. Some are not worthy, some are incendiary, some are idiots, some are Trump. For freedom of speech to work the OU needs to be able to make its own choices who to invite, who to listen to, who to grill and who to support.