A liberal defense of no-platforming

This article defends a definition of no-platforming as the practice by private actors of obstructing, or attempting to obstruct, a speaker on the ground that the speech or speaker is deeply objectionable, typically for moral reasons. A liberal defense of no-platforming is presented, asserting that it is a form of free speech protected by liberal principles, provided it is not violent. The core implication is that advocates of free speech should also support non-violent no-platforming. However, the free speech rights of no-platformers must be carefully balanced against those of the individuals being no-platformed, which may require ensuring that obstructed speakers still have an opportunity to be heard. Ultimately, the moral conflict is not merely between free speech and nondiscrimination, or between free speech and academic freedom, but rather a conflict within the realm of free speech itself.