One issue that is unfortunately contentious these days is whether denying Nazis a platform to organize and recruit by banning them from online spaces and university campuses (hereafter “No Platform”) is a violation of free speech principles. I say “unfortunately”, because it is hard to believe that we are actually having this discussion: of course it is not a violation of free speech principles to prevent evil people from organizing to commit genocide. But even if it were, we would still be morally obligated to so prevent them.

No platform is the practice of of preventing someone—either through policy or through protest—from spreading their ideas through a particular event or website. The term is mostly used to refer to rescinding an invitation to someone asked to speak at an event (such as a guest lecture at a college). The concept apparently originates from a policy used by the British National Union of Students to prevent people they disagree with from giving speeches on UK college campuses. The concept is similar to the political action of cordon sanitaire, where a politician or political party is either unconditionally excluded from coalitions or other forms or cooperation, or even completely ignored. "No platform" is typically invoked for issues such as racism, sexism, homophobia, Holocaust denial, and so forth. As what is and is not acceptable by society changes with the times, so do the targets of "no platform", with 2015 seeing protests of speakers seen as transphobic or Islamophobic who consider themselves progressive as they are feminists or atheists, respectively. No-platforming is, at best, an attempt to prevent a balance fallacy, with protesters refusing to allow tacit endorsement of reactionary views.

Depending on the circumstances, the tactic can be controversial, and has been compared to book burning.[1] Ignoring a person (or group) also means that no one is directly refuting their arguments. Some have criticized the action as a form of censorship and a violation of the principles of freedom of speech and critical thinking. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education maintains a database of hundreds of incidents[2] in which invited speakers have been no-platformed on college campuses, showing that the phenomenon has been "steadily increasing over the past 15 years" and is used more often by left-wingers than right wingers.[3]

Advocates of no-platforming counter that the speaker's message has already been heard by protesters and venue holders, and they have decided not to extend the speakers the right to an audience that has already rejected them. The protests are generally meant to raise awareness of the target's views and not a call to place a blanket ban them; the reaction from many protested is arguably censorial itself, considering they're refusing to acknowledge the right to demonstrate opposition to their views.[4] Apparently, they believe that their speech is more free than others'.

On entend beaucoup parler de liberté d’expression ces derniers temps. Que ce soit quand Dieudonné veut nous apitoyer sur son sort de pauvre antisémite martyrisé, ou plus récemment avec le massacre de Charlie Hebdo. Nous allons donc réfléchir un peu au...