In a bid to stem the tide of digital radicalisation by terrorist groups such as Islamic State, the European Parliament has approved plans for new legislation which will allow rapid and widespread removal of extremist content from the internet. Digital rights activists are up in arms over the decision, which they fear will lead to private organisations policing and censoring internet users with impunity.
We simply cannot do this if we obsess over this new victim mentality, seeking offense where none is intended. We cannot do this if we refuse to allow those we disagree with to speak. This is a generation of intellectual cowards; whether the NUS disaffiliation campaigns are successful or not, nothing will change until we do.
Common sense and free speech ultimately prevailed, and what happened to me was a glitch in an otherwise important, inclusive and functional policy. I'm not afraid to stand up to the tweeter who claimed I was worse than Putin and Assad combined, and I certainly won't apologise for defending discrimination-free spaces.
No-one in this discussion is honestly questioning anyone's "right" to hold such views - they are simply pointing out the ramifications of doing so. "No platform" calls - when actually made - are often taken by those who already feel marginalised and want to kick back against that which they consider to be a negative or oppressive force.
Instead of criticising the methods of those students stepping up to try and help their peers, we can admire their compassion, and respect their determination to plug a failing support system. And if civil liberties campaigners don't want this to deteriorate into censorship then they can join efforts to make sure that adequate support exists.