No-platforming presents some challenges, yet we should not allow hate speech to be preached on campuses

• I feel the main issue with no-platforming is who gets to decide.
• Whilst I agree speakers should not be allowed to spew hatred in universities, the policy can be a slippery slope to censoring other speakers too.
• There are arguments against no-platforming which concern the idea that we should not brush those that believe such hateful things under the rug, and preventing them airing there views is a dangerous road to pushing them underground.
• Some say it also stops people being able to respond to their views and potentially change the minds of those who may be influenced by hate speech.
• I do think universities should be given the power to stop Nazi's from giving college tours and the likes, and believe Nazi's and other far-right extremists should not be allowed to come onto campuses and attempt to radicalise students.
• However, there is a big difference between giving someone a platform in a university in the sense of an opportunity to stand on a stage or podium and preach hate speech and propaganda unchallenged, as opposed to allowing someone with those extreme views to debate and discuss ideas with those who oppose them.
• We can stop certain groups or individuals having a 'platform' without ignoring the fact that people with these views do exist in scary numbers, and by hearing their views can learn to challenge them and understand why it is so wrong, as well as prevent early signs of radicalisation.

Pretty much all universities receive state funding do they not? In which case they should probably uphold the freedom of speech that the nation does. So then I don't think the University should be barring speakers unless there is a lawful reason to do so.