Refusing debate: controversies over no-platforming

Many people think that some questions are not up for debate; they refuse to disagree publicly on these issues. In some cases, they go further, attempting to prevent public disagreement in certain contexts. This chapter examines the major epistemic arguments for and against no-platforming when it occurs in the context of universities and similar institutions. The different roles that a university is called upon to play (teaching, research, but also as a component of civil society) entail different and sometimes conflicting obligations when it comes to open speech. The chapter examines John Stuart Mill’s famous arguments in favor of unrestricted speech, as well as recent work building on Mill. The chapter argues that the powerful considerations in favor of free speech do not entail that every topic should be open to discussion. Nor do they entail that topics that should be open to debate in some forums should be equally open to debate in others. Nevertheless, some arguments might succeed in showing that there are costs to no-platforming which must be taken into consideration in individual cases.