[notgoliath]

The term "deplatforming attempt" lacks a clear definition, making it challenging to ascertain its exact meaning. It could encompass situations where there's dissent towards a speaker or concerns raised about their content. It might involve hecklers disrupting an event. However, reports of faculty or speakers being forcibly removed are often exaggerated. The concept of deplatforming is inflated to serve right-wing agendas. While the right champions free speech when it aligns with their views, they react defensively to dissenting opinions.

For example, from the cited database:

> As Clinton was speaking a heckler began shouting over her calling her a "war criminal." The school's dean had the heckler escorted out by security. A second heckler then began to shout over Clinton. Clinton paused her speech for a minute before resuming and completing her remarks.

The incident involving hecklers disrupting Hillary Clinton's speech, while undoubtedly disruptive, it's an exaggeration to say this is a threat to free speech. In no way does this indicate a systematic suppression of free speech across the campus or broader community. It's an isolated incident rather than a widespread phenomenon. The dean's decision to have the hecklers escorted out by security demonstrates an attempt to address the disruption while allowing the speaker to continue. It's a measured response aimed at maintaining order rather than outright censorship. Despite the interruption, Clinton was able to resume her speech and complete her remarks. This indicates that the disruption, while disruptive, did not prevent the speaker from expressing her views or the audience from hearing them. The fact that hecklers were present and able to voice their dissenting opinions, albeit disruptively, suggests that there is at least some degree of diversity of views on campus. This diversity is a cornerstone of free speech, even when it manifests in challenging or uncomfortable ways.

[Hnrobert42]

The article goes into some depth describing what constitutes a deplatforming event, including shouting down an in-progress event, rescinding an offer to speak, etc.

[notgoliath]

While the article may detail various forms of deplatforming events, such as shouting down speakers or rescinding speaking invitations, these actions, while disruptive, do not inherently pose a significant threat to free speech.

Another thing to note... Freedom of speech guarantees individuals the right to express their opinions, but it does not guarantee them a platform or audience. Institutions have the prerogative to manage their events and platforms to ensure productive discourse while also maintaining safety and order.

[Hnrobert42]

I was responding to the point that deplatforming is poorly defined. I was not making an argument about whether it is the correct response.

[gcr]

I do wish the author defined what it meant. Heckling? Pushback? Public calls for firing?

Without clarity, it becomes a word that the audience is invited to read their own interpretation into. When this happens, the article serves the purpose of indoctrination rather than persuasion. This is because the audience now self-limits to people who already believe deplatforming poises the threat described in the article.

See “double contextualization” and “name abuse assessment” (NAA) in a literal banana’s article: https://carcinisation.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/extended-s...

[mouse_]

I agree. They're quoting 75 deplatforming attempts in the recent year; that is not very many. Is there a list of the things that were said to cause these attempts?