“Hypocrisy” – the clash of free speech and censorship

I was banned from the Warwick Atheists, Secularists and Humanists (WASH) Facebook page because I posted a link to an article. Ordinarily, this may seem to be a little extreme, but not an entirely unreasonable response in some cases, for example if it contained hate speech.

Over the recent months, WASH have repeatedly shared articles in defence of people who have faced calls of no-platforming. Through repeated calls for debate rather than censorship, they have called for ideas to be challenged rather than censored.

The article that I posted contained a reasoned defence of no-platforming. It argued that nobody has a right to a particular platform. It suggests that calls for the no-platforming of a speaker are in fact a form of free speech on behalf of the people who oppose the potentially hateful views of that speaker.

They have called for ideas to be challenged rather than censored

This is a view that I wholeheartedly agree with. So why was it deleted when I posted it? Well, it certainly didn’t contain hate speech, and it’d be hard to argue that it’s not relevant to their recent activities, so what was the reason? WASH simply disagreed with it.

When I first posted the article to the WASH page, I expected it to be ignored, although I personally remained open to debate. I hoped that at least a few people might read it and be swayed a little, but I ultimately expected it to be ignored. Instead, it was deleted.

It certainly didn’t contain hate speech, and it’d be hard to argue that it’s not relevant to their recent activities

I posted it again the following evening, giving them a second chance, but again it was deleted. In the morning, I once again posted it, and just over an hour later it had been deleted and I found myself blocked by the page.

I must add that at no point in this process was I contacted by WASH. If I had been explicitly asked not to post it, while I certainly would have questioned the reasoning, I would have stopped. I would have probably still written this article, but I would have done as they asked.

It had been deleted and I found myself blocked by the page

Curious to see whether there was a legitimate reason for their actions, I posted in the WASH Facebook group. I asked why I was blocked for posting the article and included a link to the article in question. One member engaged with me in a brief discussion of no-platforming and civil views were aired on both sides. My post was deleted and I was removed from the group.

Despite their frequent calls for debate and the challenging of ideas, it appears that they perhaps want this to be limited only to those views that they agree with. When viewpoints are shared that they oppose, they are met with repeated censorship.

It appears that they perhaps want this to be limited only to those views that they agree with

While I fully support the right of anyone, including WASH, to delete posts and ban people from their pages for any reason at all, I cannot support hypocrisy. When an organisation calls for freedom of speech, an end to no-platforming, and debate rather than censorship, they should hold themselves to that same standard. I don’t think that this is an unreasonable expectation.

While I sincerely hope that the recent changeover of exec will bring with it a new direction and an end to the hypocrisy, I fear that WASH may be destined for the ideological landfill.

Nathan Parsons