Why do activists censor their opponents?
Executive summary
Activists censor opponents for a mix of strategic, psychological and political reasons: to block views they deem harmful or extremist, to prevent perceived normalization of dangerous actors, and to control narratives — even when that tactic draws accusations of overreach and “authoritarian” censorship (Brussels Signal reporting on an Italian book fair dispute) [1]. Academic studies show ordinary supporters selectively remove opposing political comments and that identity-driven motivations and hostility — not just neutral moderation — drive such censoring (PMC) [2].
1. Censoring as a defensive tactic: stop harm or stop spread
Activists often justify removing opponents’ platforms on public-safety or anti-extremism grounds: the attempt in Rome to exclude a publisher linked to Fratelli d’Italia was framed by left-wing intellectuals as preventing a platform for fascist ideas and authors tied to extremist movements [1]. That logic reflects a common activist calculus: permitting a voice equals normalizing it, so pre-emptive exclusion is cast as harm reduction rather than mere silencing [1].
2. Psychology on the ground: identity, hostility and selective moderation
Social-science evidence finds that the act of censoring is not neutral. Experiments show supporters of a cause preferentially delete dissenting comments and may do so even when opponents are civil — driven by identity-affirmation and sometimes outright hostility to opposing views [2]. This indicates censorship by activists can be as much about protecting group identity as it is about factual correction [2].
3. Censorship as political signaling — and its reputational costs
When activists move to bar opponents, they send a signal to the public and to institutions: to stigmatize the target and to rally supporters. But that strategy triggers counter-claims that activists are engaging in “authoritarian tactics” or political censorship, as critics warned during the Rome controversy and prompted free-speech voices and academics to push back [1]. The contest therefore becomes a cultural struggle over which norms govern public fora [1].
4. Governmental and corporate pressures change the calculus
Beyond grassroots activism, governments and institutions also deploy censorship tools that activists sometimes emulate or oppose. Human Rights Watch condemned what it called censorship and intimidation at a UN internet forum hosted in Riyadh, where recording edits and threats to a researcher were reported — showing how state settings can shape what activists and civil-society actors perceive as permissible or necessary responses [3]. Meanwhile, international debates over platform regulation — and accusations that policy regimes like the EU’s DSA can be used to silence dissent — feed activist decisions about when to push for exclusion or moderation [4].
5. Strategic aims: audience, resources and venue control
Censoring opponents can be a narrow tactic to manage a specific venue or audience: keep a book fair, a conference, a social feed or a campaign free of voices that activists believe will derail their goals. In Rome activists targeted a publisher’s presence at a national book fair because the venue confers legitimacy; blocking that access is a strategic attempt to deny prestige and reach [1]. The tactic focuses on denying resources — attention, reputation, distribution — rather than merely suppressing speech in absolute terms [1].
6. The slippery slope and the backlash problem
Censorship often backfires by making the censored issue more salient or by mobilizing free-speech allies. Reports show that visible suppression — whether state deletion of material in China or edited UN videos — can erode trust and produce conspiracy or backlash narratives that strengthen opposition mobilization [5] [3]. The Rome incident likewise produced an energetic counter-reaction from academics and free-speech advocates who warned exclusion sets a dangerous precedent [1].
7. Alternatives and the contested moral frame
Sources show two competing frames: activists portray exclusions as necessary limits on harmful speech; defenders frame them as political censorship that risks authoritarianism and harms democratic norms [1]. The academic literature suggests activists’ selective moderation is partly psychological and partly strategic [2]. Available sources do not mention a single, universally accepted rule for when activists should censor opponents — the debate remains unresolved across civil-society, academic and policy reporting (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: this analysis uses reporting on a high-profile Italian case, UN forum actions, and peer-reviewed behavioral studies to explain motives and consequences; broader comparative data or longitudinal studies are not provided in the available sources and therefore are not addressed here [1] [3] [2].