Should extremists be banned from public discussion platforms?



All you need to know about the world this 
week
SEE ALL ISSUES
EDITOR'S LETTER
Feeding the war machine
NEWS FEATURE 1
Stuck in the desert: Displaced Syrians struggle in sealed off camp
NEWS FEATURE 2
Chechnya’s gay persecution: Could Ramzan Kadyrov’s time be running out?
DIGEST AMERICAS
Will Brazil face a new impeachment crisis?
DIGEST AMERICAS
Venezuela marks 50 days of bloodshed
DIGEST AMERICAS
Trump’s budget hints at looming healthcare battle
DIGEST EUROPE
Britain reels from the deadliest attack in over a decade
DIGEST EUROPE
Greece’s financial future is cast in doubt after bailout talks fail
DIGEST ASIA-PACIFIC
In a first in Asia, Taiwan legalises same-sex marriage
DIGEST ASIA-PACIFIC
A new anti-conspiracy bill stirs controversy in Japan
DIGEST ASIA-PACIFIC
Philippine President Duterte declares martial law on Mindanao
DIGEST AFRICA
Poor Ugandans could lose mobile phone access
DIGEST MIDDLE EAST
Trump in the Middle East: Going back to the old days
THE PICTURE
Almost heaven, West Virginia
GOOD NEWS
California sets a new record for renewable energy generation
Researchers make progress in search for malaria vaccine
THE  INFOGRAPHIC
The money behind the weapons
IN SCIENCE
Is flammable ice the fuel of the future?
IN MEDICINE
Experts draw up rules for real-life star wars
IN TECHNOLOGY
Superhuman Sherpas could help treat hypoxia
www.theguardian.com
Facebook Files | News | The Guardian
www.theguardian.com
Mexico's avocado army: how one city stood up to the drug cartels
www.aljazeera.com
Then and now: Finding love during the Khmer Rouge
DEBATE
POLITICS
Should extremists be banned from public discussion platforms? 3

Calls to no-platform controversial figures have come to the fore in recent years, as the world experiences a rising tide of populism, theocratisation, and alt-right movements. Though many claim that refusing to host extremist speakers jeopardises freedom of speech, some media outlets, university unions, and debating organisations stand by their bans, especially with regard to Islamists who are often tied to anti-Semitism.

Those in favour of no-platforming argue that inviting representatives of extreme religious or socio-political views only ends up giving them mainstream legitimacy. In the wake of far-right leader Marine Le Pen’s highly controversial Remembrance Day appearance on the Andrew Marr Show in the UK, or the WikiLeaks revelations that the US Democratic Party sought to promote extremist Republican figures on the mistaken assumption they’d discredit themselves, there is a growing correlation between influential airtime and the rise once-fringe currents that have proven detrimental to harmonious communal relations - as shown by the spike in hate crimes. But the risk of no-platforming for liberals is that the banned figures gain traction and sympathy as “victims” or “outsider” figures, whose messages of truth are being censored by the establishment. Should opinions from every degree of the political spectrum be given equal and free airing? Are some views just too extreme? And how should democratic systems aspiring to political balance manage fringe entities?

read more
Share Opinion
LATEST
LEADING
L
Add bio
contributions - pts
Submit
A journalistic initiative Sponsored by:
american-express-sponsor
About this
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.
If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website.
OK