No-Platforming: A Rhetorical Analysis

From mundane arguments in a school playground, to the heated battles on the federal level of politics, individuals will have a pre-conceived notion of what is ‘right’ and defend their point of view if the opportunity presents itself. This is not necessarily a negative thing, as arguments are a way for people to express their thoughts an issue attempting to persuade the other side to accept their opinion as a superior. The students at All Souls College had a discussion on the topic of ‘No-Platformers’, and whether it is a “legitimate activism tool” as argued by the students in support of ‘No-Platforming’ being used for certain events. With free speech being a corner stone of our modern society, there is a great deal of backlash to No-Platforming, …show more content…
The role this plays is that it gives an individual or party to speak to a large audience in hopes of persuading them to consider their ideology and possible accept it. It also provides an opportunity for an opposition to raise questions that the individual or party speaking may raise during their speech. In this discussion at All Souls College, students provided their reasoning for why ‘No-Platforming’ groups protest certain events and why they believe it is justified. As Chi Chi Shi stated early on in her argument, she believes that platforms elevate individuals speaking, implying that by Platforming alone, you are validating ones position in an argument. ‘No Platforming’ is a way of preventing these ideas from becoming validated when individuals have the resources to hold an elevated position on the public.1 The three students for ‘No-Platforming’ groups all bring about the notion that not giving individuals a platform does not equal to denying their right to free speech. They imply that platforms are a privilege, and it is possible to lose that privlage,2 as long as the general public decides that it is a morally unjust position the speaker is taking. “Truth, Liberty, and Justice”3 is brought up by Barnaby Raine, as he suggests that it is something that we are actively striving for, but this cannot happen as long as offensive ideas are continuously propagating …show more content…
The speaker does not necessarily have to reflect the opinions of the institution themselves, but rather they provide themselves with the opportunity to express themselves in the hopes of opening the minds of others to their ideas. ‘No platforming’ undermines this privilege given to the speaker(s) and will ultimately result in a counter-productive effect based of the fact that the general public is capable of coming to their own conclusions and should be the sole determining factor of what is morally right in a democratic