Read on Twitter
Most deplatforming in poetry is based on publishers and writers disassociating from each other based on a given behavior, be that behavior real or perceived; not on censorship, which entails work deemed too offensive for public consumption. The former is common, the latter rare.
Until this distinction is recognized, most criticisms of deplatforming will fall short, because the intent behind the depatforming has—more often than not—been falsely labeled as censorship. So too, the role of active bystanders (i.e. Twitter mobs), will be misunderstood.
By reducing all deplatforming to a violation of free-expression, free-speech advocates ignore the competing rights of those they criticize, such as the freedom to (not) associate with a given individual/platform, and the freedom of conscience to speak out on matters of concern.
A better critique, I believe, would involve veiwing deplatforming and related Twitter mob behavior as a means for individuals to gain a sense of cohesion and collective purpose, wherein they attempt to exert social control over others as an act of reaffirming shared values/norms.
What I’m saying is, by understanding deplatforming in the poetry scene as sociological, rather than rights-based, critical emphasis can be reconfigured and placed on the often dubious means used to achieve righteous ends, rather than on the ends themselves.
For example, many journals have taken on a human resources role, affirming that they stand against abuse, sexual harassment, and the platforming of bigots. Yet, they lack clearly explicated, impartial, and transparent (as possible) procedures necessary to carry out said role.
Moreover, they lack a hierarchy of discipline, wherein the accused—if found guilty—have space to make amends. And where, even absent such a space, deplatforming is the first order of discipline, executed in lieu of a simple, public and/or private statement of disassociation.
Active bystanders on social media fill the vacuum left by a lack of procedures and hierarchy of discipline. Herein, mob justice displaces due diligence, not to mention the rights of the accused to defend themselves in cases where the mob is either wrong, or only partially right.
EICs and other journal staff thus leave themselves open to outside, collective pressure, and through their failure to practice due diligence, end up executing punishment in the form of deplatforming which well may not fit the behavior of the accused.
Another concern, related to all of the above, is some journals which claim to be safe spaces not only particpate in, but also instigate Twitter mob behavior, leading to the dogpiling of not just the accused but also any who might have heterodoxical opinions.
Amid all of this is the risk that accusations made against others may be inaccurate, over-blown, or even outright false, wherein the larger mob that takes part in a given call-out exercise little to no critical thought, instead taking accussations at face-value.
In some cases, journals are arbitrarily dismantled, as writers pull their works and then rehome them, often at the very journals that initiated or took part in a given call-out. This ironically increases their relative status as safe spaces, whether they actually are or not.
I could go on, but the point is until deplatforming and the mob-justice which often accompanies it are looked at holistically, rather than through a prism of free-speech/censorship, better models which might lead to restorative justice will not be achieved.
Meanwhile, an equal but opposite problem related to our justice system which favors the rights of the accused over the accuser will continue to manifest itself, whereby ad hoc Twitter courts which often favor the accuser will risk imposing false judgments of guilt on the accused.
I’ll only add, this is more a problem for those who advocate for safe spaces than it is for critics outside that sphere. Given the former “eat their own” more often than they do those outside their sphere shows how the means they use to achieve their ends are of limited utility.
