No “No Platform”

[jondwhite]

ALB wrote:

Here's a good speech on the subject which makes all the good points against "No Platform" which apparently is quite widespread in universities these days:http://www.spiked-online.com/freespeechnow/fsn_article/no-to-no-platform-in-defence-of-unpopular-ideas#.VNyAJCwoFqA

Haven't read it, but it comes in for a bit of a pasting at urban75.

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SP,different channels of communication opperate under different principles.  We have a standing principle to publish all letters to the Standard, but they go through the editorial committee, who have to exercise a degree of judgement (the ones in green ink and going on about Satan tend not to make it through to print for some reason, hideous insidious censorship).At a physical meeting, someone who shouts "whoop-de-whooop-mcpoop" continuously would eventually be "censored" by being man handled outside, where you would no longer be able to judge if somewhere in the noise there was a meaningful message that deserved to be heard.There is no difference when this happens online, save that, because of the delayed nature of the communication, someone could look at it and see if there is something that could be forwarded to the meeting.  This is actually an advance.So, we have three clear distinctions to make:Content of communicationManner of communicationAction of communicationThe case being made here is that there should be no restriction on content, but manner and action are matters for consideration, since they are the point at which speech acts impinge on other people.The principle is that the least interference necessary to enable people to communicate their ideas to one another is ideal; and preferably in a democratic context.  Obviously, in the case of this forum, the democratic context is not the participants of the forum, but the members of the party through their demcoracy – non-party members have no say in how this forum is run. Fat fact..

YMSLooks like I'm having to go through it again.Ok, so the Socialist Standard has limited space for letters, meaning editorial decisions need to be taken. Articles or letters? Tough one there.At a physical meeting you could find yourself removed for disruption, likewise on the forum via the system of reminders, warnings and suspensions. So there is no difference there. I don't see the problem with removing people who are disruptive. And it's a pretty poor argument to say they are being censored, as by that defintion there would be many a censored individual cooling off in police cells come the weekend.Imagine the scenario at a physical meeting whereby all contributions had to be heard by the chairperson before the audience could hear them, with any "unsuitable" bits disallowed". And what if the chairperson could retroactively remove a persons contribution from the meeting or decide for the audience what does or doesn't count. I imagine most audience members, never mind contributors, would feel insulted and a little angry, that the chair had the audacity to think they couldn't decide for themselves what was worth considering and ignoring. In case you didn't grasp it, this is worth quoting again.

Quote:

There is a further point: all censorship — especially censorship of this kind, allegedly exercised for the benefit of the working class — is an insult to the intelligence of ordinary working men and women since it implies that they cannot be trusted to hear or read certain ideas and are incapable of making rational judgements on the merits of rival ideas. Those who favour censorship always assume that they are somehow superior to ordinary people and have the right to decide what ordinary people should or should not hear.

Your whole argument seems to focus on how forum members conduct themselves. If someone abuses the rules of the forum that are there to organise the multilayered environment, then they can be dealt with, as in a physical meeting. But when methods of pre-moderation and retroactive deletion are used to control contributions then that is censorship in action, doing exactly what it is meant to do, control people.You make it quite clear that you think the issue has nothing to do with me as a non Party member. But the "Fat fact" remains censorship happened within the domain of the SPGB. A little embarrassing perhaps, but not the end of the world considering the relatively new environment it took place in. I see it as something to be learnt from, a chance to discuss whether or not it is suitable for socialism.

[alanjjohnstone]

To return to the original topic i see the the Weekly Worker has an article on No Platformism that some will find an interesting readhttp://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1045/did-free-speech-allow-the-nazis-to-come-to-power/

[ALB]

That article makes some good points but doesn't actually answer the question it poses of "Did free speech allow the Nazis to come to power?" I wouldn't have thought it did, but the Nazi party did win enough votes to be asked to form a government. In which case, the SWP should more logically be demanding "No Place on the Ballot Paper for Fascists" but that would expose too blatantly the undemocratic nature of their "No Platform" demand.

[Young Master Smeet]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Looks like I'm having to go through it again.Ok, so the Socialist Standard has limited space for letters, meaning editorial decisions need to be taken. Articles or letters? Tough one there.

So you accept that different media, and different communication channels demand different conditions on the manner of expression?

SocialistPunk wrote:

At a physical meeting you could find yourself removed for disruption, likewise on the forum via the system of reminders, warnings and suspensions. So there is no difference there. I don't see the problem with removing people who are disruptive. And it's a pretty poor argument to say they are being censored, as by that defintion there would be many a censored individual cooling off in police cells come the weekend.

Not all disrupters are drunks, some are sincere opponents of the meeting's aims

SocialistPunk wrote:

Imagine the scenario at a physical meeting whereby all contributions had to be heard by the chairperson before the audience could hear them, with any "unsuitable" bits disallowed".

That would be difficult to organise in a live environment.  But, lets say it was a very busy meeting, and contributors were asked to pass a note to the chair asking to speak, and saying what they would generally say.  The chair could decide in such circumstances to not choose to call off-topic speakers, those whose contribution may be abusive, disruptive, etc.  That, again, would not be censorship, but maintaining channel clarity.  So long as democratic methods for redress existed (again, which did not clog up nor disrupt the meeting) that would be fine.The point is, on the internet, people can go and spot their opinions elsewhere if they want, freedom of speech doesn't mean they have to do it here, or that we have to give bandwidth over to them.There is no embarrasment here.

[ALB]

Obviously, once the principle that democracy means that "the majority has its way and the minority has its say" is accepted, there still remain the practical and procedural questions of how you measure a majority, how the minority has its say, etc.

[Anonymous]

Forum discussions do not resemble  public/party meetings.  A moderator is not a chairperson. He/she is appointed annually..You can't move a motion  'That the chairperson be removed' for example, as you can with branch meetings. Nor could the mover of such a motion be warned for being drunk, abusive or disruptive as is the case with forums and moderators. The comparison in nonsensical to say the least. 

[SocialistPunk]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

Looks like I'm having to go through it again.Ok, so the Socialist Standard has limited space for letters, meaning editorial decisions need to be taken. Articles or letters? Tough one there.

So you accept that different media, and different communication channels demand different conditions on the manner of expression?

SocialistPunk wrote:

At a physical meeting you could find yourself removed for disruption, likewise on the forum via the system of reminders, warnings and suspensions. So there is no difference there. I don't see the problem with removing people who are disruptive. And it's a pretty poor argument to say they are being censored, as by that defintion there would be many a censored individual cooling off in police cells come the weekend.

Not all disrupters are drunks, some are sincere opponents of the meeting's aims

SocialistPunk wrote:

Imagine the scenario at a physical meeting whereby all contributions had to be heard by the chairperson before the audience could hear them, with any "unsuitable" bits disallowed".

That would be difficult to organise in a live environment.  But, lets say it was a very busy meeting, and contributors were asked to pass a note to the chair asking to speak, and saying what they would generally say.  The chair could decide in such circumstances to not choose to call off-topic speakers, those whose contribution may be abusive, disruptive, etc.  That, again, would not be censorship, but maintaining channel clarity.  So long as democratic methods for redress existed (again, which did not clog up nor disrupt the meeting) that would be fine.The point is, on the internet, people can go and spot their opinions elsewhere if they want, freedom of speech doesn't mean they have to do it here, or that we have to give bandwidth over to them.There is no embarrasment here.

YMSI do accept different media have limitations and require different managerial approaches. The current managerial or moderation approach being used on this forum is the reminder, warning and suspension system. Simple enough to deal with disrupters without the need to engage in censorship practices.Ooops, I keep forgetting that you argue the removing of a disruptive person from a meeting space could be seen as a form of censorship, but checking what they say to make sure it meets approval before it can be heard, is not censorship. Silly me for thinking it the other way.

Quote:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities.Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship.

I didn't say that all disrupters are drunk. Merely that if you define the stopping of disruption as a form of censorship then many people who find themselves arrested on a weekend for "drunk and disorderly" could fall into such a category of being denied freedom of expression.The imaginary scenario I spoke about was merely that. Imaginary. So imagine a physical meeting whereby the chairperson could vet all contributions and remove comments? That would be censorship. But according to you if it happens on a forum such as this it is "maintaining channel clarity"."maintaining channel clarity", interesting one. Reminds me of military euphemisms, "collateral damage", "shock and awe". I can picture a military spokeperson in front of reporters saying, "We disagree in the strongest terms that the military engage in censorship, there is however a need to maintain channel clarity for national security reasons."Your last paragraph is quite telling. Your defence of censorship has broken down to nothing more than if people want to spout opinions (presumably about cake decorating) then they are free to go elsewhere. In other words, "sod off, this is our space". Albeit a space the SPGB must want non Party members to come to and engage in political discussion, as two internal communication forums open only to Party members already exist. At the end of the day if the SPGB want to "maintain channel clarity" then they are free to do so in any manner so desired. But if openness and transparency are deemed important, and I assume they are, (as is proved by the NERB on-line branch meetings taking place on this site) then censoring contributions is a step in the wrong direction.Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

[moderator1]

SocialistPunk wrote:

 Something tells me that the censorship mistakes of the recent past won't be repeated a second time.

And if they are, or any other interference with the role of moderating, what happens next?  For the record, such actions will not be an internal matter for the I.C. to deal with.  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

[Anonymous]

A reoccurrence of what?My democratic friend. A Platform for NERB?You been having one of your secret meetings?How about a memo?'No Platform for NERB'

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

 There you go, comrades! Do we take this crap lying down ?  Is this not our forum too?  

[moderator1]

Vin wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

 There you go, comrades! Do we take this crap lying down ?  Is this not our forum too?  

A initial move in the right direction would be for you and your Branch to lodge an official complaint to the I.C. I lodged my complaint straight after the incident occurred.   

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

 I lodged my complaint straight after the incident occurred.   

What incident? 

[Anonymous]

moderator1 wrote:

 And if they are, or any other interference with the role of moderating, what happens next?  For the record, such actions will not be an internal matter for the I.C. to deal with.  Indeed, if we do happen to have a reoccurrence I will take it all the way.  No problem. 

 Off topic, well it would be…….15?

[Anonymous]

I frequent many forums and have never come across one as autocratic as this! ffs chill out! 

[Author]

Posts