I'm all for deplatforming. The problem has always been one of legitimacy. In allowing arguments from racists, say, to be aired, what is conferred upon them is legitimacy: one admits it as an option to be considered at all in the first place. And shame - the baggage of shame that comes with holding reviled ideas, ideas so unworthy as to be unworthy of even a platform - is a powerful demotivator. Conversely, what platforms allow - for any ideas, reprehensible or not - tend to be a sense of community, a sense that there are others out there 'like me', in the same boat. It can be awful isolating not to have those connections. People are fickle, and it's worth leveraging that.

tl;dr deplatforming can make bad people feel bad, and that's good because they may become less bad. Or drive them deeper. But generally the former.

For me it depends on the nature of the 'de-platforming'. I'm all in favour of the owners of platforms, such as lecture theatres, town halls, TV and radio stations, social media sites etc, declining to make their facilities available to racist speakers (or censoring racist material in the case of online media).

I am not in favour of mobs of students blocking entry to lecture halls that a university has, however unwisely, decided to hire out to a speaker that is deemed racist, or their trying to prevent the speaker from being heard. This is for tactical, not moral reasons. Images of aggressive students shouting somebody down or blocking people from peacefully attending a lecture are high-octane fuel to the populist narrative of the Trumps and Milo Yiannopoulos's of this world, and do enormous damage to progressive causes.

As is evident from my post, I agree entirely. I think it is a right for any community to express what kind of views and language they are willing to tolerate within their community and ostracise those that do not meet that standard.

If a meeting of physicists trying to decide on which particular theory of quantum physics was best was attended by a couple of astrologers, their views would not be listened to, they would be 'de-platformed' in the debate, and quite rightly too as they clearly have nothing to bring to it.

In a discussion about the policies of a liberal democracy, racists have nothing to bring to it, suggesting they do is to suggest that their way is a legitimate option we need to consider.

But I'm interested to hear from people who defend the rights of racists to speak, to try and understand how they reconcile the apparent paradox, are we presuming people decide mostly on rationality or social influence, and if the latter, how are we deciding what kind of influence de-platforming will have?

Images of aggressive students shouting somebody down or blocking people from peacefully attending a lecture are high-octane fuel to the populist narrative of the Trumps and Milo Yiannopoulos's of this world, and do enormous damage to progressive causes. — andrewk

It's interesting that you think this. I tend to agree about the ability of such images to be used by the alt-right, but I'm not quite so convinced that there's an argument for them actually helping their cause more than the actions of the students would have hindered it.

Consider firstly the effect such images would have on a theoretically equivocal voter. What views would they already have to hold in order that such images would actually persuade them one way or the other? No Liberal defender of free-speech is going to vote for Trump just out of spite, so it wouldn't be enough that they dislike the repression of free speech, such a person would remain politically as they were, but just be more annoyed. So we're concerned about those who have some sympathy with racists views but perhaps have held back until now. What I don't get then, is what kind of weird reverse psychology do we imagine would cause them, on seeing how violently a group of students do not want a racist to speak, to think "well I wasn't so sure about racism before, but I am now". The only thing I can think of is that they really hate students, and tend to think that whatever students hate, they must like. I accept this is possible, but I really can't see it as being a more likely explanation than that they were going to think/vote that way anyway and if it hadn't have been this image/excuse, it would just have been another.

In either case, we also have to ask how allowing the racist to speak (persuading the angry students to let him past) is going to somehow pacify this equivocal voter, how would it make them actually think that their latent racism is somehow less acceptable and they'd better not vote for the racists after all. I'm just not sure how this mechanism is supposed to work.

Interesting and important conversation.

I think advocates of this position should lay out some specific guidelines for determining what types of speech would be banned. Would certain groups be exempt from the constraints that will clearly be imposed on the likes of Nazis and KKK members? This sense of a double-standard IMO does more to harm the cause of de-platforming than the ostensible added attractiveness of ideas once they've been shut out of public discourse.

Another concern I'd have surrounding this topic--based on similar discussions with people who'd like to curtail free speech on the grounds of racism--is that there seems to be a strong tendency among many to extend the notion of racist speech out to include non-overtly racist groups, such as traditional, small government conservatives.

I'm not a big fan of that particular small government conservative position (nor do I want a massive administrative state), but the idea that holding certain political and economic policy preferences can be seen as implicit forms of racism, on par with (or even more sinister than) explicit racist statements, is extremely disconcerting. Sensing a possible slippery slope here may not be as far-fetched as it sounds.

Concerning the paradox you wanted to focus on, I may be way off here but it seems like you're separating the rational and emotional/non-rational (social influence?) sides of our being in a way that doesn't seem to reflect how people typically form beliefs. I can't think of too many people who are sincerely willing to follow the argument wherever it leads regardless of how the results may fit into their larger sense of identity and overall worldview.

Look at all the thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable people here at TPF and ask yourself how many times you've seen one of them thanking another for pointing out a flaw in their position, for helping them arrive a bit closer to truth, or even acknowledging that they've lost an argument. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

Some people are clearly more logically-minded and rational while others may be more intuitive or emotional, I'd grant that, but I don't think there's a sharp dichotomy, and that being the case the either/or scenario you laid out which results in a paradox seems to rest on a questionable assumption.

I'm probably just misunderstanding your position. If so my apologies.

I wouldn't do anything and private owners of venues can do whatever they want.

My reason is that it has no effect. People hold beliefs and give answers that are socially acceptable within the group they wish to belong to and speech acts reinforce their bonds with each other. The reason the right has such a solid hardcore base is because they are very clear who's in and who's out. Mushy leftists who want everyone aboard don't have a core story around which people can rally, which is why the left is fragmented and less effective both socially and politically (or downright sabotaged by the democratic party itself).

What's needed is a stronger leftist narrative that enables people to categorise groups of people as in or out, including a broader narrative of socially acceptable responses. So rich vs. poor, people vs. corporations, workers vs. capitalist etc. Meanwhile, you start to demonize right wing bullshit.

The lie of trickle-down economics.
The right takes away our choices.
Nozick is evil.
Rand is a moron.
Peterson is gay.
Capitalism only makes us poorer while the rich get richer.
etc. etc.

A simple message repeated ad nauseum.

If you get enough people in your camp, others will want to join and that's how you'll marginalise the alt-right, neo-nazis and racists by making them socially unacceptable.

Also, on this note. What the hell is the deal with Black Panther "finally" having a black superhero? And people celebrating Luke Cage as progressive. Really?



We're going backwards...

But I'm interested to hear from people who defend the rights of racists to speak, to try and understand how they reconcile the apparent paradox, are we presuming people decide mostly on rationality or social influence, and if the latter, how are we deciding what kind of influence de-platforming will have? — Pseudonym

This is a problem with democracy in general, the idea that people might rationally decide who ought to rule them. The real reasons for why individuals choose what they do, are not clear. Plato compared the voting public to children. One cook offers them a healthy meal, the other offers them candy, and they choose the latter. People do not decide "mostly on rationality". Nor do they decide mostly on "social influence". A decision is a confluence of many particulars, from within, and from outside..

The answer is that we de-platform irrationality, not "racism", "sexism", etc.

This way we wouldn't be hypocrites banning free speech. Words assembled in an incoherent form, or contradicts other statements, isn't speech at all. It's simply noise. That is what we would be banning - noise from the actual rational debates that are needed.

I think advocates of this position should lay out some specific guidelines for determining what types of speech would be banned. — Erik

Do you think that comes first, or do you think we actually need to decide what method we're going to use before applying it. By that I mean, if we were to exclude racists from the debate, why would we be doing so? Once we've answered that question it would become a matter of arguable (but ultimately resolvable?) fact as to whether a particular point of view fits this criteria or not. I don't know if I've just missed it, but I don't feel like we've actually decided, as a society, what it is about racist views that makes us feel able to flatly deny them. Is it the fact that they're unfair (no-one chooses who they're born to), or the fact that they're wrong (you race does not determine your character in any way), or that fact that they're harmful (potentially)? The problem is I can think of lots of commonly held ideas that could fall into any of these categories (though perhaps not all three).

the idea that holding certain political and economic policy preferences can be seen as implicit forms of racism, on par with (or even more sinister than) explicit racist statements, is extremely disconcerting. Sensing a possible slippery slope here may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. — Erik

I don't see this as being a problem personally. Racism is quite clearly defined as being treating someone differently because of their birth parents. If people wish to have a net migration target, for example, there's clearly no racism involved there, but if people want to have an immigration target (regardless of emigration) from particular countries, I don't see how that's anything but racist, it's clearly saying that the potential immigrants are somehow of a lower value than the native population, or some other population, purely on the basis of where they were born.

You both seem to be making the same point, that people are neither entirely rational nor entirely socially led. This is where I think the importance of practical ethics comes in. I'm not saying that we could ever decide which is the way people act, nor even that there is one way, but we cannot act in such a way as to presume both, even if both are the case.

We must either de-platform racists (presuming most people are socially led and we need to set a clear example), or we debate with them (presuming most people are rational and will see how silly their arguments really are). I'm not sure I see how the insight that people are really a mixture of both actually helps us make the decision.

My reason is that it has no effect. People hold beliefs and give answers that are socially acceptable within the group they wish to belong to and speech acts reinforce their bonds with each other. — Benkei

Absolutely, and there's a considerable amount of good psychological evidence to support this view (as no doubt you already know).

But does it not then follow that obvious displays of what particular social groups find acceptable are important in maintaining their integrity. So if we're going to engage in any sort of social engineering then encouraging the displays of those social groups whose views are most amenable to civilised society over displays by those groups who are not is something we should be supporting?

private owners of venues can do whatever they want. — Benkei

Yes. From the legal standpoint It gets somewhat more complicated here in God's favorite country when those owners accept government funds, for example, in which case the First Amendment may be implicated.

"De-platforming" forsooth. Is it too difficult to say "Prohibit certain kinds of speech" or "Prohibit certain people from speaking"?

that is an interesting complication. I'm not sure I'd like to go far with it though unless it contradicts the purpose of the subsidy. But it has a clear political dimension "my taxes paid for what?!"

I think it's well settled that the First Amendment applies to public colleges and universities. Whether it does when private colleges and universities accept federal funding is unclear. Acceptance of that funding creates an obligation to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws; that much I know. As that's the case, would it create an obligation to comply with the Constitution? It seems to me there's an argument to be made to that effect.

In order that de-platforming makes ideas more attractive we must presume that people are motivated to agree with ideas, not on the grounds of the rationality of the argument, but on the grounds of how well it fits into some preferred narrative. — Pseudonym

No we don't. If the ideas are only de-platformed and not rationally argued against, they become more attractive from the rational point of view.

Racism is quite clearly defined as being treating someone differently because of their birth parents. — Pseudonym

This is a good place to start. Is that the definition we're using?

I think it's well settled that the First Amendment applies to public colleges and universities. — Ciceronianus the White

Could you please elaborate on what that means? Does it just mean that the amendment protects a person from prosecution, or administrative sanction, for views expressed in a lecture, tutorial or more widely within public university grounds?

Or - a much stronger interpretation - that a public university is legally obliged not to refuse to hire out its facilities to someone on the grounds of the views they express, unless the expression of those views would actually break a law?

I would be surprised if the latter were the case but, being an alien, I never cease to be surprised by things I learn about God's favourite country.

No we don't. If the ideas are only de-platformed and not rationally argued against, they become more attractive from the rational point of view. — BlueBanana

I don't understand. How could an idea become rationally more attractive simply because it has been de-platformed. What rational step means that an idea is more likely to be right because lots of people don't want it talked about?

Is that the definition we're using? — Roke

Unless anyone's got a better one.

Consider firstly the effect such images would have on a theoretically equivocal voter. What views would they already have to hold in order that such images would actually persuade them one way or the other? — Pseudonym

All they need have is a dislike of bullying, which is a very common dislike. Regardless of whether such protests actually are bullying, they look like bullying when shown on the TV news, and that's enough to turn many uncommitted voters against whatever it is that the protesters represent.

Most people do not make decisions in the way that Chidi Anagonye does.

What I don't get then, is what kind of weird reverse psychology do we imagine would cause them, on seeing how violently a group of students do not want a racist to speak, to think "well I wasn't so sure about racism before, but I am now". — Pseudonym

That is only relevant if there is no debate about whether the person giving the lecture is a racist, and the person accepts the label themselves. In the real world, that is almost never the case. A more likely interpretation would be

'Those students are screaming that XYZ is a racist and jostling people that are trying to attend the lecture. Those students look like horrible, aggressive bulllies, so I doubt they are believable. So it seems likely that their accusation that XYZ is a racist is false. So not only are they bullying him, but they are falsely accusing him of a horrible thing, which is racism. My how horrible they are! Poor, brave XYZ for standing up to them. I will vote for him'

I don't understand. How could an idea become rationally more attractive simply because it has been de-platformed. What rational step means that an idea is more likely to be right because lots of people don't want it talked about? — Pseudonym

It's de-platformed -> the people opposing it talk less about it -> the people opposing it argue less against it -> less rational and logical arguments are presented against it -> it's easier to rationally come to the conclusion that the idea is correct.

Simply put, the First Amendment's provision that Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble" etc. applies throughout our Glorious Republic via the Fourteenth Amendment, and through court decisions has been determined to prohibit not only the federal government, but state and local governments, not only from making such laws, but also from making rules or policies which abridge the freedom of speech or acting in such a manner as to do so, through their agents, representatives and employees.

What that means is public universities and colleges are prohibited from "abridging freedom of speech" Doing so is a violation of the Constitution (and various state constitutions as well). But, although fans of the Second Amendment seem sometimes to think otherwise, the legal rights and prohibitions created by the Constitution are subject to exceptions; they're not absolute. Speech can be abridged in certain circumstances.

For example, the protection of speech under the First Amendment is subject to “regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.” How do you like that? In addition, speech is subject to the law of defamation. We can't defame each other freely, alas. We can use the courts to sue for defamation. Worse yet, we can be penalized if we threaten one another in some cases, incite riots, that sort of thing. Judges and lawyers and legislators have labored over the years, whittling away at the First Amendment and others.

So there may be circumstances where a public university or college can abridge free speech, but they must be careful to avoid legal action.

the problem has always been one of legitimacy. In allowing arguments from racists, say, to be aired, what is conferred upon them is legitimacy: one admits it as an option to be considered at all in the first place — StreetlightX

Mill would have strongly disagreed with you. In his day, the equivalent was obscenity or atheism as far as what was deemed unacceptable by society at large. That's the danger. Most of us will agree that racism is wrong, but if we give society the power to deny that speech, then what speech will be denied tomorrow?

It's all good when we agree with the speech being denied, but someone else gets into power or society changes their mind and we might no longer agree. It could be our speech that's being prohibited. That's why the US is so hardcore on free speech, and the ACLU will bend over backwards to defend the most outrageous speech.

Mill thought it was important for us always to have to defend our ideas against all-comers. It's important for society's growth to have to hash out dissenting ideas.

Mill would have disagreed with me, and I'm okay with that. Given the choice between hypothetical 'danger' and real, currently existing danger, I will choose dealing with the latter each time, to the (non-)detriment of the non-existent.

Really? It makes conservatives go away? That's not what I would predict. What I would predict is that first, it would likely be that initially no one would really care if some Conservative Speaker came over and talked to a conservative audience (which they do so over internet web shows and FOX News anyways.) But once they're de-platformed, it goes on national media and there's going to be a lot of buzz. And then conservatives would all start saying "The Left doesn't want to engage with our ideas. They fear us. They fear us to the extent of denying us our 1st Amendment rights." And from the perspective of those whose political behavior is a bit undefined, or from some teenager/young adult trying to figure out for themselves what they want to believe, they'll look at that say "Hmm...the Right seems to be correct. The Left doesn't really care about our Constitutional Rights and they don't want to debate ideas." And then maybe also a Conservative Speaker who might not have gotten as big of an audience has his popularity shoot up.

It's better to think of consequences in terms of predictable social psychology and political maneuvering than some imagined consequences that arise from asserting an abstract stamp of disapproval that de-platforming supposedly brings.

Personally I care more about free speech as a principle and its social benefits (benefits that protect those most vulnerable, which include activists) rather than simply what the government happens to enforce. At least in our modern capitalist society, the distinction between public and private sphere tends to be blurred because private corporations is the arena in which people act and enforce a lot of rules. So understanding free speech strictly through the 1st Amendment is a related but separate concern for me from how citizens should behave in organizing their society.

Free speech is more about listening than speaking. While it's defined in terms of a speaker what it's actually about is the listener.

So, we shouldn't be judging the speaker here. People come in all shapes and sizes. What we should be doing is assessing the audience. Is the audience rational enough to distinguish good from bad arguments.

Censorship assumes that the audience is not up to the task of making that distinction and likely to fall prey to bad arguments and mind manipulation.

Speaking of this community of philosophers I think you all are reasonable people and unlikely to be swayed by irrational people.

So, I say no to censorship because I think we can quite easily spot a bad apple when we see one.

Really? It makes conservatives go away? That's not what I would predict — Saphsin

I never said, nor implied, it would make conservatives go away. I don't believe I even invoked 'conservatives' at all. What I did say is that deplatforming makes it shameful and isolating to hold certain points of view, and that this can be desirable. I have no particular attachment to the sanctity of free speech, insofar as speech, as with all spheres of life, is a potential field of politics, and contrary to liberals like Mill - or indeed, liberals in general - who would aim to pretend that politics doesn't exist - I have no problem both embracing and affirming the political nature of speech. If this means impinging on abstract principles for the sake of it, so much the worse for those principles.

Personally I agree with Mill, but even if you don't and are singularly focused on dominating over views you disagree with, I just find odd the quick assumption that somehow banning them in ineffectual ways is going to make them hold any less influence over the public. I don't see how any of this is grounded in how people actually think. A few years ago, the South Korean military decided to "ban" a number of books they considered dangerous. Nevertheless, some of the books on the banned list shot up in sales. Because condemning something rather than educating them into that perspective makes something look so cool all of a sudden doesn't it?

Also I'm not a liberal and don't think like them, but they happen to be right once in a while, even if for different reasons. It's really irrelevant to the point I was making about actual physical consequences of what's happening in politics. That's caring about real ongoing politics and power, not some imagined set of circumstances. I don't really care what political label you tack onto it, I care about winning over people to my perspective, and the shaming tactics regularly used by liberal TV Networks and other bubbles hasn't made a dent in actually making the portion of the public worth considering give a crap.