Milo Yiannopoulos’ Twitter ban emphasises the importance of eradicating on-campus hate speech
'It's an example of how controversial figures can abuse their platforms and circumscribe others' freedom of speech, perpetrating the oppression of marginal communities'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Twitter finally decided to ban the self-proclaimed “most fabulous supervillain in the world” and technology editor of conservative news site Breitbart, Milo Yiannopoulos, for life. Calls to ban his account were made after Leslie Jones, actress in the new Ghostbusters film, was bombarded with vitriolic racist tweets, ultimately causing Jones to leave her account.
Whilst Yiannopoulos’ actions are far from surprising, with a notorious career based on Internet trolling, the removal of his Twitter platform is a promising step in ensuring hate speech is not tolerated online. Yiannopoulos will join a list of other recently banned-for-life accounts which include Azealia Banks, who was banned back in May for sending an array of vicious and racially-charged tweets to singer Zayn Malik.
On-campus censorship, no-platforming, and the debate surrounding free speech have long been heated topics. Speech which incites hatred, abuse, and the erasure of marginalised voices is being construed as ‘radical’ and controversial, with critics of no-platforming accusing students’ unions of threatening freedom of speech and pandering to the ‘overly sensitive’ minority. This threat to freedom of speech is noted in a Spiked survey which claims 80 per cent of universities have either restricted or censored freedom of expression on campus.
Last November, the University of Bristol's Journalism Society faced calls to no-platform Yiannopoulos, and, ultimately, conceded to allow him to debate against Telegraph columnist and feminist Rebecca Reid. This was decided after a poll over whether Yiannopoulos should be allowed to speak concluded with 84 per cent in favour as 1,704 students cast their votes. This arguably succeeded in encouraging a full elaboration of Yiannopoulos’ viewpoint in a balanced, safe environment, which, hopefully, more universities will adopt.
Yiannopoulos’ visit to Bristol University led to a huge rise in membership and attention to the event, which is a recurrent pattern that follows once no-platforming is whispered on campus.
Whilst the no-platform policy is not a perfect solution, often resulting in a ‘don’t touch the red button’ situation and garnering greater attention for the individual in question, at its foundation, the policy is there to protect students, having been set up in the early 1970s by the NUS as a reaction against the National Front, over fears they were recruiting on campus.
Though I would never go as far as to compare Yiannopoulos’ views to the likes of the National Front, the point still stands that hate speech cannot be tolerated on campus. Twitter was right to ban Yiannopoulos. His antics towards Jones led to the erasure of her platform as his followers were even able to make a fake account to replace her voice. It’s an example of how controversial figures can abuse their platforms and circumscribe others’ freedom of speech, perpetrating the oppression of marginal communities.
Yiannopoulos’ actions do not represent freedom of speech, but rather emphasise the lack of control online platforms have over their audiences. At university, the ability to ensure audiences are not abused, upset or attacked as a result of a platform is far easier to monitor than online, and preventing hate speech from seeping into the norm of student life does not mean students are being ‘shielded’ from the real-world. There is a difference between ensuring educated students are provided access to speakers of contradictory views and allowing online hate speech to reach a huge, unfiltered audience.
Yes, university is an encouraging space for the expansion of one’s mind and, with that, it cannot be helped that students will encounter opinions that they do not agree with. That is part of the experience. However, a university must prioritise the safety of their whole student body, and draw a line between controversial viewpoints that will provide insight and oppressive hate speech that merely incites division and oppression.