[RD] Censorship Up at UK Universities

[BvBPL]

A recent report by the Free Speech University Rankings reveals that a whopping nine out of ten UK universities are restrictive of free speech. This apparently includes bans on dressing up as Caitlyn Jenner, bans on blasphemy, and even bans on newspapers. What’s more, the trend is going in the wrong direction as the portion of high-concern universities is on the rise from 15 to 23.5%.

Not only is official censorship on the rise, but the students, sadly, are getting behind it. Some two-thirds of students appear to be in favor of no-platform policies where controversial speakers are given blanket prohibitions.

Forty years ago, Harvey Milk was a controversial speaker.

 

[Kyriakos]

Although it seems that in the last decade Britain has become more authoritarian in the media and other public speaking, it used to be probably way too much chaotic in the late 90s, to the point that people in some tv shows openly expressed vile views under the guise of "i am playing the role of an arrogant working class bloke" -sic, hate that term

Eg i recall feeling really appalled by an ep (or rather almost all eps i saw) of "never mind the buzzcocks", some game-comedy show. I mean, the host was openly putting down, for 30 min, a gay musician guest of the show, just cause in his view it was cool to do so. All that on the BBC, of course, along with pedophile hosts and blackface (and pro-war all the way).

 

[Flying Pig]

For context, the 'bans on newspapers' are nothing of the sort. Newsagents, bars and so on at several universities have decided to stop buying (among others) the Sun and the Daily Mail, because the student body has voted that it does not want to support them. None of them has 'banned' the paper, any more than they have banned the Outer Hebrides Observer, which you won't find sold on a single university campus. Likewise, 'no platforming' simply means refusing to invite (and pay) somebody because the students find their views offensive. There's not a lot of ground between deciding not to hire Frankie Boyle because you find his jokes distasteful, and deciding not to hire him because you don't find him very funny.

 

[Arwon]

Yeah I'm not sure newsagents refusing to buy the Sun is in the top 20 anti-freedom things about Thoughtcrime Island.

It'd be somewhere below that time it didn't let the people name a boat after holding a vote.

I'm enjoying the demented notion that free speech means compulsory speech though. YOU MUST LISTEN.

 

[BvBPL]

Check the newspaper story again. City University banned the Sun, and it certainly wasn't because the paper wasn't selling enough.

 

[Arwon]

Lol maybe they're just showing solidarity with Scousers who, after all, never buy the Sun.

 

[Kyriakos]

Check the newspaper story again. City University banned the Sun, and it certainly wasn't because the paper wasn't selling enough.

The Sun isn't really the kind of paper to have around in a university (or anywhere else, really). It is the english version of Bild. Utter garbage rag

 

[Ajidica]

Relevant in any discussion involving the Sun or Daily Heil.

 

[Old Hippy]

in protest at the bans this winter they are going to put chairs in the snow with the Sun tapped to them

 

[Zkribbler]

Check the newspaper story again. City University banned the Sun, and it certainly wasn't because the paper wasn't selling enough.

From the story:

The Union is currently unaware of any outlets on campus selling the mentioned media publications.

Apparently, it wasn't selling at all

I also note that the "ban" isn't by the university, but by the student union; and that there's no discrimination on how the ban would work. Anyone's who's every gone to a university knows student governments don't set the standard for student behavior.

I call; FAKE NEWS!

 

[Flying Pig]

From the story:


Apparently, it wasn't selling at all

I also note that the "ban" isn't by the university, but by the student union; and that there's no discrimination on how the ban would work. Anyone's who's every gone to a university knows student governments don't set the standard for student behavior.

I call; FAKE NEWS!

Yes. A body with no disciplinary role passed a resolution that these papers 'have no place on campus'. That is very much not the same thing.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The bit I really cannot work out is why anyone would either want to dress up as Caitlyn Jenner or ban people from dressing up as her.

 

[Mise]

@BvBPL - I agree that there is a worrying trend of denying legitimate speech in universities, one that started in the US and has been mirrored in the UK. However, the example you're defending right now -- the widespread boycott of various newspapers on University campuses -- is among the least egregious or concerning. Organised boycotts of the Sun, for example, are fairly commonplace in the UK. The entire city of Liverpool has boycotted the Sun for the past 30 years, following their disgraceful reporting of the Hillsborough disaster. Liverpool football club itself has banned the Sun. And, in any case, the Sun remains the most popular paid newspaper in the country, so it's not like these boycotts are marginalising minority viewpoints. Similar backlashes followed the phone hacking scandal, and various other tabloid newspaper scandals, over the years.

That being said, the City University student union campus ban vote did indeed cross a line. I agree that this is actually just censorship, straight up, and has no place in a liberal democracy, let alone in a place of learning. The City University student union made themselves look pretty stupid in that whole affair.

Yes. A body with no disciplinary role passed a resolution that these papers 'have no place on campus'. That is very much not the same thing.

The stupidity of the vote and of the student union was compounded, not diminished, by the fact that the union had no power to impose any such ban.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm not convinced. If a body is going to set itself up to represent students, it should be able to formally express opinions on their behalf. I don't see how 'this student body believes that the Sun has no place on campus' is different from 'this student body supports the Labour Party', and statements like the latter are exactly what student unions are set up to be able to make. After all, it was probably the same people saying that a student union has no business issuing statements condemning the Sun complaining that a student union refused to issue a statement condemning ISIS. If the latter is part of their remit, so is the former.

 

[Mise]

The correct analogy would be "this student body believes that the Conservative Party has no place on campus".

 

[Flying Pig]

The correct analogy would be "this student body believes that the Conservative Party has no place on campus".

I don't think so. Some students are members of the Conservative Party; not a lot of them are issues of the Sun. Plenty of universities have, however, said that the British Army is not welcome on campus.

 

[Mise]

Some students are readers of the Sun. Additionally, if you're going to be that pedantic, the putative motion was with respect to the Conservative Party, not to its student members.

In any case, you've already said that "this student body supports the Labour Party" is substantially the same as "this student body believes that the Sun has no place on campus". You contradict yourself when you say that replacing "the Sun" with "the Conservative Party" makes the two statements not substantially the same.

Your argument is that "this student body believes that the Sun has no place on campus" does not constitute a ban on the Sun. You argue, further, that this is merely akin to stating the political affiliations of the student union. If that is so, then you ought to agree that "this student body believes that the Conservative Party has no place on campus" does not constitute a ban on the Conservative party, and that it is merely akin to stating the political affiliations of the student union.

 

[Flying Pig]

I do agree. However, I disagree that the two statements are the same. It would be one thing to say 'this student body does not like professional footballers' and 'this student body does not like Chelsea supporters', because some of the students will probably be Chelsea supporters. Things go a bit further when an official body is making its own members feel unwelcome. I'm not sure that reading the Sun is as central to anyone's identity as political affiliation often is, particularly among the tiny minority of the population committed enough to join a political party. It wasn't always so, but one of my favourite statistics is that the RSPB has more paid-up members than every political party added together.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I can remember when the "Sun" tits and nonsense paper decided to run a mockery campaign against the French.

The French government started to complain about that British newspaper which most of us Brits I knew
then found very amusing because the joke was on the French, they had foolishly mistaken it for a newspaper.

 

[Farm Boy]

Plenty of universities have, however, said that the British Army is not welcome on campus.

I think we just pull Federal funding when recruiters/ROTC are prevented from operating on a campus. Seems effective enough. Relatively fair, too, all things considered.