Article:

No Platforming. Safe Campus and Ambivalent Twists on Freedom of Speech

This paper reflects on the emergence and the evolution of approaches regarding “no platforming” since the 1970s. While opponents say that no platforming flouts ideals of open public discourse, and defenders see it as a justifiable harm- prevention measure, both sides mistakenly treat the debate like a free speech conflict, rather than an issue of academic freedom specifically. Content-based restrictions on speech in universities are widespread. Besides, this is no affront to a liberal conception of academic freedom, whose purpose isn’t just to protect the speech of academics, but also to give them the prerogative to determine which views and speakers have sufficient disciplinary credentials to receive a hearing in academic contexts. No platforming should therefore be acceptable to liberals, in principle, in cases where it is used to support a university culture that maintains rigorous disciplinary standards, by denying attention and credibility to speakers without appropriate disciplinary credentials or to politically biased actors whose speech elevates risk for harm.