@Bigkid4 has taught maths well for 13 years. Prior to that he taught Maths badly for about 5. Although his support for Labour waned while Labour was in government, he is now keen to support Labour’s efforts to remove the Tories from office.
I’m reading quite a bit about no platforming recently. Most commentators seem to think it is a freedom of speech issue. They are mistaken in my opinion. The reason for this is simple. No organisation or individual is obliged to listen to promote or engage with ideas they find abhorrent. Furthermore if an organisation has through, their own hard work over time, built their credibility to the point where they have a significant following then they have every right to decide who they invite to speak on that platform.
In no way does this prevent anyone from expressing their views as they see fit. When an organisation no platforms someone they make a statement that people with certain views cannot use that organisation’s credibility and audience as a platform to express their views. It is not saying the person cannot express whatever views they wish in any fashion they wish. It is simply saying that they have to build their own platform in order to do so.
When you share a platform with someone you give them credibility. The greater your audience. membership and credibility you have the more sharing a platform with someone benefits them. If someone holds views that are abhorrent then why would any organisation be out to do them any favours?
The other accusation thrown at those who no platform is that they are being precious or over-sensitive and trying to avoid views they don’t like or protect themselves from hearing views they find offensive. While there may be some of that going on to reduce no platforming to that is to do everyone a disservice.
No-platforming is a political statement. It’s one way of saying that certain views are so unacceptable and lacking in credibility in the opinion of a group or organisation that they have no interest in engaging with them. In my experience the decision to no platform is often contentious and motivated by a desire not to do the person or group holding certain views any favours rather than by a desire to insulate or protect anyone from offence.
If you stand on a platform with someone you have no control over how the media portray the event. You have little say in what the public discourse about that event looks like. Once you share that platform with the person whose views are beyond the pale you have no control over what is remembered about the debate or event. Given the nature of our media is it any wonder that lots of people have no interest in trusting in the media to report accurately or impartially?
I would also point out that anyone who wishes to hold views that others find offensive is welcome to do so but they are not entitled to speak on any platform they see fit. Nor they entitled to be invited to speak anywhere they happen to wish to. They certainly have no right to demand anyone listen to them. While they are entitled to express whatever opinion they wish to they have no right to demand that their opinions be respected (just their right to express those opinions). Perhaps it is the people being no platformed that are being precious because they cannot imagine or deal with anyone not wishing to hear their views.