Mapping the world's opinions

Universities are meant to be the burgeoning hubs of idea exchange, yet denying controversial speakers a platform on campuses has become increasingly acceptable? Are there good reasons to no-platform inflammatory speakers?

Yes, Universities should be able to no-platform speakers

No-platforming is legitimate and beneficial

Controversy compromises student safety

The issue with inflammatory speakers is that there are often violent altercations at their events. Student safety is paramount. Explore

Lawmakers can no-platform

If lawmakers are allowed to no-platform speakers, why can't universities? Explore

A platform grants legitimacy

The best way to combat extreme ideas is to not afford them the space to spread. Explore

Universities have rights too

No-platforming is not really censorship. It is just individual universities choosing speakers who align with their values. Explore

No, Universities should not be able to no-platform speakers

No-platforming is harmful and shouldn’t be done

Students should learn to cope with controversy

The real world cannot be deplatformed or muted when you are uncomfortable. Explore

Extremism is countered by debate

Forcing views we deem unpalatable underground doesn't help us tackle them - only open debate will. Explore

A violation of free speech

Many countries in the West have laws protecting free speech. No-platforming violates those protections. Explore

Universities are there to progress human comprehension

"Everything we know about the world...the age of our civilization, species, planet, and universe... came as insults to the sacred dogma of the day." Explore
This page was last edited on Wednesday, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:11 UTC