Even worse, it's "deplatforming attempts". If someone complains about a speaker, even if the institution doesn't agree, it seemingly goes on the list. In that context it feels even more ridiculous.
I believe it is also per speaker not per event. So if there is a panel of ten people, that counts as ten deplatformings.
So something like this from their recent list:
> Turning Point USA scheduled a “Freedom Built to Last: Honoring Charlie Kirk” memorial at Utah Valley University, featuring a number of prominent conservative speakers. Students for a Democratic Society at UVU opposed the event honoring Kirk and his political legacy. The university declined to cancel the event, and it proceeded on Sept. 10.
You used the word "campus", because you didn't want to say that the students wanted to hear someone speak. You didn't want to say that, because it's clearly false: students are the ones who invited the deplatformed speakers in the first place. Sure, some other students didn't want them to be able to speak, but then we are just talking about differing opinions and a right of a minority students to hear voices that the majority wants deplatformed. By using the word "campus", you attempted to imply a presence of a non-existent consensus.
There's also a second reason why you used the word "campus": because when anyone speaks on a campus, the inanimate campus always hears it. If you said that the "students campuses don't want to hear someone speak", the obvious retort is that nobody is making them do it, they just don't have to attend. Of course, what is actually happening there is not that the majority of students don't want to hear those speakers, instead they don't want the speakers to be able to speak, and they don't want the minority to be able to listen. That's why deplatforming is so pernicious and evil, and why people like to play language games to minimize the illiberalism on campuses.
Sure, it's not always students who invite someone, but that doesn't really affect much: students are not a uniform body, and even if they were, while university administration might want to choose someone they'll like, they also might want to choose someone who'll challenge them, and provide diverse perspective to counter such homogeneity -- as I understand it, diversity is an important value to university administrators.
Ultimately, the problem with deplatforming is not about mere complaining. Students complain all the time about everything. The problem rather is about public disturbance, heckling, and intimidation. That's what the student activists are regularly engaged in.
> Ultimately, the problem with deplatforming is not about mere complaining. Students complain all the time about everything. The problem rather is about public disturbance, heckling, and intimidation. That's what the student activists are regularly engaged in.
Weird then that FIRE regularly complains about students doing things beyond "public disturbance, heckling, and intimidation."
Academic campuses are just a specific battleground for this sort of thing with a highly motivatable group of people with sufficient time. To be honest, campus speakers are rarely of value. Most content is better transmitted through text than through speech. The latter has substantially more density per unit time and allows for per-reader sophistication with modern interrogation tools.
The reason for campus speakers falling out of favour so that only unthreatening ones are accepted is perhaps troubling but the outcome isn’t so bad. The utility of a college is primarily certification because pedagogy for a motivated learner is superior with an LLM.
I'm very much for free speech but FIRE here is cataloging "attempts to oppose invited guest speeches" at a time where actual students have been expelled or sent to guantanamo for political speech. Have some perspective.
> Almost all of the deplatforming attempts involving politicians or government appointees since 2023 have come from the right of the expression.
First comment:
> Democrats are Fascists, they hate free speech, hate private property and individual rights, support massive wealth redistribution, and they always have.
If the comments here are anything to go by, everyone now assumes that “deplatforming” automatically means “left wing activists versus right wing provocateur” and tunes out without reading.
I take this as a stronger signal that too many people with shitty opinions have a microphone these days, and they make it their entire career to "tour" and manufacture outrage. We're really complaining that students objected to Tim Pool speaking on their campus? Freedom from association can be as strong of an argument as freedom of expression. Negative / positive rights and all that. Hopefully we're hitting peak podcast / ragebait culture and Gen Alpha will call out their elder Gen Z cohort as "cringe" for listening to so many low-signal podcasts.
No. I think there’s a baseline level of rejection of speakers that an NYT journalist would usually be a part of. I think we’re above that baseline because of podcasters with shitty opinions.
And it’s not so much that the opinions themselves are shitty, but that the methods of expression are designed (and through algorithms, optimized) to enrage and incite.
Ok, that’s fair, I do think that there’s a lot of intentional ragebait and controversy right now in the media.
However, ragebait isn’t a new thing. Think of Fox News hosts in the 2000s, Bill O’Reilly and the like. They made their living making outrageous and controversial statements to millions of viewers. And the radio “shock jocks” alongside them.
I cannot be bothered to care about this kind of thing. A student group submitted a proposal that an event be canceled but the proposal didn't succeed? That sounds like something that happens a normal democratic society. How is that newsworthy in a world where we have actual students being expelled for partaking in protests or e.g. arrested for an op-ed in the student paper.
It’s a trend that reveals attitudes about hearing opposing perspectives in younger cohorts. It’s an early signal for what future politics may look like.
Or it's a trend which reveals how FIRE's ability to identify these incidents has improved, and even give a false signal if the actual attitudes have improved.
"This original database only recorded attempts to disinvite speakers from speaking at campus events. FIRE announced the expanded Campus Deplatforming database on February 8, 2024, and detailed how the expanded database now includes records of attempts to cancel performances (e.g., comedy shows, plays), art exhibits, or film screenings, in addition to speaker disinvitation attempts"
How much of the recent change is due to that expanded coverage?
I tried to download the data, but got a "Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: a.has is not a function" in Firefox. I can see though that the first few entries include a staged reading of a play, an artistic work on display, and Night of Drag fundraiser, so I know it's showing the expanded coverage.
I also can't figure out how to search the data. How many times is Kissinger in the database?
Does it include, for example, https://nyunews.com/2018/10/16/10-17-news-kissinger/ from 2018? ("Once it was made public that he would be a guest at the Stern speaker series, “In Conversation with Lord Mervyn King,” over a dozen student groups organized a protest against him titled “No War Criminals at NYU” and wrote a letter calling on the university to cancel the event.")
I have a really tough time with any "database" which offers downloading and search, but where both are broken (at least for me), making spot-checking very difficult.
Before social media, these sorts of things would be reported in the school and perhaps also local newspapers. We know this because we've read about the anti-war protests in the 1960s and 1970s. I know this, because I went to college ca. 1990 and these happened.
But gathering this data would require expensive and slow scholarly effort.
The database issues are a problem, agreed, hopefully they get it fixed. You shouldn’t publish something claiming to be based on data without making sure access to the data is available.
Also a great question about Kissinger.
> Before social media, these sorts of things would be reported in the school and perhaps also local newspapers.
Actual disinvitations, yes, but I imagine that it would have been harder to find examples of unsuccessful pressure. Not everything makes into the paper, depending on who the editor is, and an unsuccessful pressure campaign may not be considered a real story. I don’t see how that past data could even be collected now in a convincing way.
With regards to past violence, I would say that the early instances were indicative of the later trend. But obviously not every trend continues forever (most don’t). I don’t think it’s something to panic over, but it shouldn’t be ignored.
That's rather the question, isn't it? Why do you think the present data collected by FIRE was done so in a convincing way?
I read the methodology and wasn't convinced that the collection isn't biased by the marketing push awareness of FIRE's mission, or by changing methods in data collection.
Regarding old campus newspapers, part of the "expensive and slow scholarly effort" means also reading the followup papers to see if there is information about a meeting being held or canceled, and if there isn't, include that in the statistics collection.
I don’t think the methodology is perfect, but they have been reasonable in the past. Not as good as the EFF, and with a past rightward slant (but it’s encouraging to see them pointing out the right here). They are a useful signpost on civil liberties from the right much as the ACLU can be a useful signpost from the left.
I suspect that the data collection will improve from this point forward if they commit to this series. As I said, I don’t really think that it’s feasible to get convincing data on this particular issue from the past, even if you mine the newspapers and whatever fossilized meeting schedules can be extracted from the archives. You could craft a narrative around whatever you find, but I don’t think I’d put much stock in it, whichever way it goes.
As I said earlier, I’m just happy someone is collecting this data now moving forward. I think it’s an important indicator, and definitely something to watch in the future.
How do you know they have been reasonable? Because they come to conclusions you agree with, or because you have investigated their methodology and found it sound?
"If they commit to this series"? You know their data starts in 1998. How long until you think they are committed?
If there are no error estimates, how can you even tell if it's an important indicator upward or downwards?
> "If they commit to this series"? You know their data starts in 1998. How long until you think they are committed?
Ok, so database search does seem to work for me at least. I found a 2020 Kissinger cancellation but not the 2018 one. I am curious about its absence. There was only one NYU issue recorded that year. Looks like you might have found a missing data point.
Anyway, if they stick with the current methodology until 2030, I’ll say that’s a solid start. That’s 15 years since 2015, which is a reasonable arbitrary year past which the effects of modern social media would be in play. Trends should be very clear at that point, and data collection methods shouldn’t be too different from the start of that period.
As for why I respect their reporting, I read some about their methodology in the past, when I first started following them, and I also have read criticism of them, which I did not find compelling. I don’t generally dig into every little detail of it because I have trusted sources who trust them, and that’s how you generally find your way in a world with too much data and too little time. Regardless, although they are imperfect (that missing data point!), they seem to be fairly thorough.
Given that the first example I came up with is not in the database, that strongly suggests the dataset is not all that thorough.
That, combined with the lack of error bars (with estimates for possible increased signal sensitivity in their collection method), and the fact they changed methodology while their reports imply an unchanged methodology, does not lead me to the same conclusion you've reached.
I worked at a regional state uni in middle of nowhere Midwest for 10 years. A non negligible number of ultra right provocateurs would come to campus and say hateful culture wars shit for no purpose but to "own the libs" and post about it on social media.
The fact that some students complain about it is not surprising -- it's pretty much the intended effect. And I guess now that goes on a list so that right wing groups can fundraise off of it.
43 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 9.0 ms ] thread200 deplatforms in a year? (There were 75 in 2003, the 30 year trend is gentle at best.)
There's almost 6000 higher education institutions in the US. This is fabricated outrage.
So something like this from their recent list:
> Turning Point USA scheduled a “Freedom Built to Last: Honoring Charlie Kirk” memorial at Utah Valley University, featuring a number of prominent conservative speakers. Students for a Democratic Society at UVU opposed the event honoring Kirk and his political legacy. The university declined to cancel the event, and it proceeded on Sept. 10.
They were always bipartisan.
McCarthy. The Dixie Chicks. Teletubbies. Hell, the American Revolution saw people tarred and feathered for supporting the wrong side.
Humans have done this as long as there've been humans. Other ape species exclude shits from the troop just like we do.
There's also a second reason why you used the word "campus": because when anyone speaks on a campus, the inanimate campus always hears it. If you said that the "students campuses don't want to hear someone speak", the obvious retort is that nobody is making them do it, they just don't have to attend. Of course, what is actually happening there is not that the majority of students don't want to hear those speakers, instead they don't want the speakers to be able to speak, and they don't want the minority to be able to listen. That's why deplatforming is so pernicious and evil, and why people like to play language games to minimize the illiberalism on campuses.
That's it, really, I'm not some evil wordsmith with an agenda.
But okay man, sure.
Ultimately, the problem with deplatforming is not about mere complaining. Students complain all the time about everything. The problem rather is about public disturbance, heckling, and intimidation. That's what the student activists are regularly engaged in.
Weird then that FIRE regularly complains about students doing things beyond "public disturbance, heckling, and intimidation."
The reason for campus speakers falling out of favour so that only unthreatening ones are accepted is perhaps troubling but the outcome isn’t so bad. The utility of a college is primarily certification because pedagogy for a motivated learner is superior with an LLM.
Also, maybe you didn’t read closely, but an increasing number of deplatforming attempts are coming from the right, which may be important for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_R%C3%BCmeysa_%C3%...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detention_of_Mahmoud_Khalil
> Almost all of the deplatforming attempts involving politicians or government appointees since 2023 have come from the right of the expression.
First comment:
> Democrats are Fascists, they hate free speech, hate private property and individual rights, support massive wealth redistribution, and they always have.
Sigh.
And it’s not so much that the opinions themselves are shitty, but that the methods of expression are designed (and through algorithms, optimized) to enrage and incite.
However, ragebait isn’t a new thing. Think of Fox News hosts in the 2000s, Bill O’Reilly and the like. They made their living making outrageous and controversial statements to millions of viewers. And the radio “shock jocks” alongside them.
Look in the mirror.
"This original database only recorded attempts to disinvite speakers from speaking at campus events. FIRE announced the expanded Campus Deplatforming database on February 8, 2024, and detailed how the expanded database now includes records of attempts to cancel performances (e.g., comedy shows, plays), art exhibits, or film screenings, in addition to speaker disinvitation attempts"
How much of the recent change is due to that expanded coverage?
I tried to download the data, but got a "Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: a.has is not a function" in Firefox. I can see though that the first few entries include a staged reading of a play, an artistic work on display, and Night of Drag fundraiser, so I know it's showing the expanded coverage.
I also can't figure out how to search the data. How many times is Kissinger in the database?
Does it include, for example, https://nyunews.com/2018/10/16/10-17-news-kissinger/ from 2018? ("Once it was made public that he would be a guest at the Stern speaker series, “In Conversation with Lord Mervyn King,” over a dozen student groups organized a protest against him titled “No War Criminals at NYU” and wrote a letter calling on the university to cancel the event.")
I have a really tough time with any "database" which offers downloading and search, but where both are broken (at least for me), making spot-checking very difficult.
Before social media, these sorts of things would be reported in the school and perhaps also local newspapers. We know this because we've read about the anti-war protests in the 1960s and 1970s. I know this, because I went to college ca. 1990 and these happened.
But gathering this data would require expensive and slow scholarly effort.
Are you sure it was Pew? https://nypost.com/2026/09/21/us-news/record-number-of-us-co... says it was a FIRE, and I gotta say I'm not impressed with them so far.
Going back to your suggestion that this may be an "early signal for what future politics may look like." I remind you that we used to have firebombings at colleges (examples, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_Hall_bombing , https://www.nytimes.com/1969/11/12/archives/firebomb-set-off... and https://las.illinois.edu/news/2021-07-13/fire-protest-braver...), as part of the protests against Vietnam. How well did those protests predict the future?
Also a great question about Kissinger.
> Before social media, these sorts of things would be reported in the school and perhaps also local newspapers.
Actual disinvitations, yes, but I imagine that it would have been harder to find examples of unsuccessful pressure. Not everything makes into the paper, depending on who the editor is, and an unsuccessful pressure campaign may not be considered a real story. I don’t see how that past data could even be collected now in a convincing way.
> Are you sure it was Pew?
I think you’re right, I have also read the FIRE article and I may have confused it with an earlier poll from Pew about political violence, along with a more recent one about free speech and the media. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/23/americans... https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2026/09/15/americans-...
With regards to past violence, I would say that the early instances were indicative of the later trend. But obviously not every trend continues forever (most don’t). I don’t think it’s something to panic over, but it shouldn’t be ignored.
I read the methodology and wasn't convinced that the collection isn't biased by the marketing push awareness of FIRE's mission, or by changing methods in data collection.
Regarding old campus newspapers, part of the "expensive and slow scholarly effort" means also reading the followup papers to see if there is information about a meeting being held or canceled, and if there isn't, include that in the statistics collection.
I suspect that the data collection will improve from this point forward if they commit to this series. As I said, I don’t really think that it’s feasible to get convincing data on this particular issue from the past, even if you mine the newspapers and whatever fossilized meeting schedules can be extracted from the archives. You could craft a narrative around whatever you find, but I don’t think I’d put much stock in it, whichever way it goes.
As I said earlier, I’m just happy someone is collecting this data now moving forward. I think it’s an important indicator, and definitely something to watch in the future.
"If they commit to this series"? You know their data starts in 1998. How long until you think they are committed?
If there are no error estimates, how can you even tell if it's an important indicator upward or downwards?
Ok, so database search does seem to work for me at least. I found a 2020 Kissinger cancellation but not the 2018 one. I am curious about its absence. There was only one NYU issue recorded that year. Looks like you might have found a missing data point.
Anyway, if they stick with the current methodology until 2030, I’ll say that’s a solid start. That’s 15 years since 2015, which is a reasonable arbitrary year past which the effects of modern social media would be in play. Trends should be very clear at that point, and data collection methods shouldn’t be too different from the start of that period.
As for why I respect their reporting, I read some about their methodology in the past, when I first started following them, and I also have read criticism of them, which I did not find compelling. I don’t generally dig into every little detail of it because I have trusted sources who trust them, and that’s how you generally find your way in a world with too much data and too little time. Regardless, although they are imperfect (that missing data point!), they seem to be fairly thorough.
That, combined with the lack of error bars (with estimates for possible increased signal sensitivity in their collection method), and the fact they changed methodology while their reports imply an unchanged methodology, does not lead me to the same conclusion you've reached.
The fact that some students complain about it is not surprising -- it's pretty much the intended effect. And I guess now that goes on a list so that right wing groups can fundraise off of it.