Of course the Mail in this case has been platformed, not deplatformed.
Unless someone has kicked it off the platform in front of an oncoming train.

The bearded one has revoked the “ban”.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42687568

Haha – it’s back.

Does this make Branson the good or bad guy or now less appealing to ‘both sides’?

Aracer

Do you think everybody is entitled to a platform

I think that there are some institutions who should absolutely be giving platforms to most opinions. Branson and his company don’t need to give people platforms but universities shouldn’t deplatform because of protests.

are there no views you think so abhorrent that speakers shouldn’t be extended an invite?

Very few and none have been in the DM since the 40s. 5thElephant gave the example of Nick Griffin on Question Time. He well and truly hung himself with the rope he was given. Unless you’re advocating actual harm on someone (or a group) then I’m very much in the ‘sticks and stones…’ camp. I find theists of all denominations worrying but think the best thing you can do with them is put them in front of a camera with a Hitchens or a Dawkins.

You do realise it is possible to have liberal opinions which aren’t just for show?

It depends on what you mean by ‘liberal’ but I’m so cynical I do wonder.

Godwin’s Law you fool!!!!!!!! ( 🙂 smile as I like you but you’re a fool for heading in that direction in any argument)

I find theists of all denominations worrying but think the best thing you can do with them is put them in front of a camera with a Hitchens or a Dawkins.

Dawkins seems to disagree with you though since he deliberately chose not to debate with certain theists

Well, he’s no Hitchens 🙂

as usual xkcd says it much better than me

The alt text on that one sums it up very well:

“I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.”

Could be their new byline: The Daily Mail – not literally illegal.

I understand the argument, but still not sure I agree, because giving encouragement to some views isn’t actually helpful to society.

5thElephant gave the example of Nick Griffin on Question Time. He well and truly hung himself with the rope he was given.

He did, but some of those with similar opinions are much cleverer than him.

Godwin’s Law you fool!!!!!!!! ( smile as I like you but you’re a fool for heading in that direction in any argument)

You’re assuming it wasn’t deliberate 😆 – though whilst I did think about just posting it for that reason, I realised that actually it isn’t one, because it’s an appropriate comparison in the context http://reason.com/archives/2005/07/14/hands-off-hitler

As a liberal snowflake I hate racism but have always been uneasy about no platforming people.

However the daily mail continually has deeply unpleasant editorials and headlines – I see it sometimes at work.

it really is an abhorrent publication

The one that really gets to me was the furore over the liverpool care pathway and the constant attacks on healthcare professionals for using it. Nasty and wrong. All the liverpool care pathway was was best practice in a laid out manner. The mail told a whole series of lies about it. The government bowed to the mails campaign and banned it making it certain that more dying people had a bad death

google “daily mail liverpool care pathway” to see a sustained campaign based on hatred fear and ignorance. Caused a great deal of harm

the mail is also deeply racist and prejudicial and has been censured for this. It harassed a trans teacher until she suicided.

the mail has blood on its hands