Student Paper Draws a Student Protest

[I-10east]

I think people on the right don't realize that they have their own form of political correctness.

Example? I'm not some pitchman for the right like some probably think, but shutting down freedom of speech (in present times) seems to be damn near exclusively a leftist tactic. Now if you wanna talk about an era like the 80s, that's a different story. If there is any from the right nowadays, it's extremely insignificant compared to the left.

[Adam White]

I think people on the right don't realize that they have their own form of political correctness.

Example? I'm not some pitchman for the right like some probably think, but shutting down freedom of speech (in present times) seems to be damn near exclusively a leftist tactic. Now if you wanna talk about an era like the 80s, that's a different story. If there is any from the right nowadays, it's extremely insignificant compared to the left.

How about the whole military worship thing? You're not allowed to critique the military. I'd say the strict rules of enforcing patriotism and denouncing anyone who appears to hold dissenting opinions is a prime example. Or the fact that you can't become President unless you make it clear that you go to church.

It's all the same way of thinking - but as is usually the case, those the most guilty of doing it are incapable of seeing that they are doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right-wing_political_correctness

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness

[I-10east]

^^^Sure many conservatives think that the military can't do no wrong, believe in the military industrial complex etc; I would agree that is conservative correctness. Although the anti-military liberal voices are heard loud and clear, in contrast to many conservative voices that are constantly silenced on liberal establishment conduits like youtube, facebook and on and on.   

[InnerCityPressure]

^^^Sure many conservatives think that the military can't do no wrong, believe in the military industrial complex etc; I would agree that is conservative correctness. Although the anti-military liberal voices are heard loud and clear, in contrast to many conservative voices that are constantly silenced on liberal establishment conduits like youtube, facebook and on and on.   

From my view, the right has Facebook propaganda on lockdown.  Maybe I have too much family from the South?

[Adam White]

^^^Sure many conservatives think that the military can't do no wrong, believe in the military industrial complex etc; I would agree that is conservative correctness. Although the anti-military liberal voices are heard loud and clear, in contrast to many conservative voices that are constantly silenced on liberal establishment conduits like youtube, facebook and on and on.

Pro-military propaganda is so widespread in the USA - and it's so common you don't really think about it. How often do politicians or other people preface comments with a statement about how they support the military and how people in the military are heros, etc? I remember last time I was in Jax- it was May 2014 - and they were advertizing a "military appreciation day" in the TU. I can't remember what it was, whether it was a sale or an event or whatever. Every day is military appreciation day in the USA.

Also, the American flag is EVERYWHERE. It's not that way in other countries (and their flags, of course). The obsession with patriotism (I'd call it nationalism) is overwhelming. But what's worse is that dissenting voices are shut down. Look at what happened when Emily Blunt made a joke about questioning her decision to become a naturalized US citizen after watching the Republican debates? People lost it and said she should leave and go back where she came from, etc. It was clearly a joke, but that sort of speech isn't tolerated by a lot of people on the right.

People need to relax. On the other hand, I don't think it's being "PC" to speak out if someone is insulting minorities, women, etc. Even if that person calls himself a comedian. It's not being "PC" to not be a dickhead - it's just being a good person. A lot of people who bemoan PC are people who think people today are too sensitive - but what the real issue is, is that the 21st century is different and white men can't just make jokes at the expense of minorities in a consequence-free environment.

[I-10east]

Also, the American flag is EVERYWHERE. It's not that way in other countries (and their flags, of course). The obsession with patriotism (I'd call it nationalism) is overwhelming. But what's worse is that dissenting voices are shut down. Look at what happened when Emily Blunt made a joke about questioning her decision to become a naturalized US citizen after watching the Republican debates? People lost it and said she should leave and go back where she came from, etc. It was clearly a joke, but that sort of speech isn't tolerated by a lot of people on the right.

I'm not sure about that "America is the only place with alot of national flags". Many countries are that way. If anything, we are one of the most multicultural places. Even in Jax, if someone has a mini windshield banner, nine and a half times out of ten it's a Caribbean country's flag; I myself have an American mini banner, I'm proud of it, and I served this country. I think that alot of American liberals really hate America, as many have this super-infatuation with Europe like they can't do no wrong and they have no problems. Many blacks perniciously dwell into revisionist history (perpetuated by white liberals) as a reason to hate America. I'm the type when someone says 'I hate America' or 'I wanna leave this terrible country' etc, I'm like 'don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out' call me conservative far right or whatever. 

[Adam White]

Also, the American flag is EVERYWHERE. It's not that way in other countries (and their flags, of course). The obsession with patriotism (I'd call it nationalism) is overwhelming. But what's worse is that dissenting voices are shut down. Look at what happened when Emily Blunt made a joke about questioning her decision to become a naturalized US citizen after watching the Republican debates? People lost it and said she should leave and go back where she came from, etc. It was clearly a joke, but that sort of speech isn't tolerated by a lot of people on the right.

I'm not sure about that "America is the only place with alot of national flags". Many countries are that way. If anything, we are one of the most multicultural places. Even in Jax, if someone has a mini windshield banner, nine and a half times out of ten it's a Caribbean country's flag; I myself have an American mini banner, I'm proud of it, and I served this country. I think that alot of American liberals really hate America, as many have this super-infatuation with Europe like they can't do no wrong and they have no problems. Many blacks perniciously dwell into revisionist history (perpetuated by white liberals) as a reason to hate America. I'm the type when someone says 'I hate America' or 'I wanna leave this terrible country' etc, I'm like 'don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out' call me conservative far right or whatever.

That's weird, because although I think conservatives have values that are inconsistent with what I think it means to be American, I would never contend that they hate America.

[JBTripper]

I think people on the right don't realize that they have their own form of political correctness.

Example? I'm not some pitchman for the right like some probably think, but shutting down freedom of speech (in present times) seems to be damn near exclusively a leftist tactic. Now if you wanna talk about an era like the 80s, that's a different story. If there is any from the right nowadays, it's extremely insignificant compared to the left.

How about the whole military worship thing? You're not allowed to critique the military. I'd say the strict rules of enforcing patriotism and denouncing anyone who appears to hold dissenting opinions is a prime example. Or the fact that you can't become President unless you make it clear that you go to church.

It's all the same way of thinking - but as is usually the case, those the most guilty of doing it are incapable of seeing that they are doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right-wing_political_correctness

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness

Criticizing a person for critiquing the military isn't a form of censorship. Criticizing a presidential candidate for not being a Christian isn't a form of censorship. It's a battle for hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas. You can write an anti-military op-ed in the New York Times, but conservatives don't have to like it. You can run for president without going to church, but conservatives don't have to vote for you.

What you see on the Left is something altogether different from criticism and rejection. Attempting to shut down a campus newspaper, whether it's public, private, independent or university-affiliated, is an attempt at censorship.

[Adam White]

I think people on the right don't realize that they have their own form of political correctness.

Example? I'm not some pitchman for the right like some probably think, but shutting down freedom of speech (in present times) seems to be damn near exclusively a leftist tactic. Now if you wanna talk about an era like the 80s, that's a different story. If there is any from the right nowadays, it's extremely insignificant compared to the left.

How about the whole military worship thing? You're not allowed to critique the military. I'd say the strict rules of enforcing patriotism and denouncing anyone who appears to hold dissenting opinions is a prime example. Or the fact that you can't become President unless you make it clear that you go to church.

It's all the same way of thinking - but as is usually the case, those the most guilty of doing it are incapable of seeing that they are doing it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right-wing_political_correctness

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness

Criticizing a person for critiquing the military isn't a form of censorship. Criticizing a presidential candidate for not being a Christian isn't a form of censorship. It's a battle for hearts and minds in the marketplace of ideas. You can write an anti-military op-ed in the New York Times, but conservatives don't have to like it. You can run for president without going to church, but conservatives don't have to vote for you.

What you see on the Left is something altogether different from criticism and rejection. Attempting to shut down a campus newspaper, whether it's public, private, independent or university-affiliated, is an attempt at censorship.

And I'm sure the Dixie Chicks and Sinead O'Connor would agree.

As I said, those most guilty are the ones who seem least able to see it.

[Tacachale]

Yeah, that's still not censorship. Censorship is using a vested authority to limit speech (or peoples' access to that speech). Criticism, even loud or overwhelming criticism, isn't censorship. In its real sense, a boycott against a person or entity over something they said isn't censorship either.

In the case of the Wesleyan newspaper, the protesters really are calling for censorship. They're advocating for the school's authorities to step in and determine what the papers should say, because they're unhappy with this op-ed piece. In fact, they're going beyond censorship in calling for their followers to destroy copies of the paper so no one can read it. It doesn't cast them in a particularly favorable light.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/23/wesleyan-students-boycott-campus-newspaper-threaten-funding

That said, the protest is really pretty small and the school's administrators and faculty have come in strongly in support of the paper. Now it's just a matter of what the student government does. That's one of the problems of a school paper being funded by the school itself, especially at a private school.

[Adam White]

Sorry - I don't agree at all.

Edit: and neither does the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

In contrast, when private individuals or groups organize boycotts against stores that sell magazines of which they disapprove, their actions are protected by the First Amendment, although they can become dangerous in the extreme. Private pressure groups, not the government, promulgated and enforced the infamous Hollywood blacklists during the McCarthy period. But these private censorship campaigns are best countered by groups and individuals speaking out and organizing in defense of the threatened expression.

There is no difference between the students using their political power to pressure the school to defund the newspaper than there is for people to pressure radio stations to not play certain music - or to try to pressure venues not to allow certain people to perform.

It's all censorship, as it's limiting the right of a person. Whether it is official censorship or not is immaterial. Me drowning out someone's election rally by continuously blasting an air horn is a form of censorship and is functionally no different than the government not allowing someone to hold a rally in a park because they don't agree with the content.

[Gunnar]

Good Lord what a bunch of bitches.  Write a rebuttal and send it in if you disagree

Swinging the PC flag is so much easier than writing a thoughtful rebuttal though 

Sad thing is that some of those are probably going to be future leaders.

I don't know the ins and outs of why this happened - I certainly haven't see much to indicate why the particular column was considered offensive (the original article doesn't really give much info in this area). I am inclined to think this is an overreaction.

That said, I am so sick of people using the term "PC". It's so easy to just dismiss other opinions as being the result of so-called "politically correct" thinking.

I find that "PC" is actually a pretty good term - definitely shorter than "I am against it since it does not fit my particular view of how things should be". Plus, it sounds so much friendlier than fascism.

"Overreaction" is putting this *very* mildly.

[Tacachale]

That's a pretty loose definition of censorship, and I doubt many would agree with it. Censorship typically means there's a power to coerce involved. It's not necessarily the government; media entities self-censor all the time, for instance. Criticizing or even protesting against something isn't nearly at the level of, say, a university stepping in and telling a paper what it can and can't print, or the government. It may rise to disruption, or intimidation, but it's not "censorship".

Perhaps a person with an airhorn is guilty of censorship after a fashion, although that's a lot easier to deal with than a full on institutional suppression. But someone or even a lot of people critiquing or boycotting someone over what they say is most certainly not censorship. I'd agree that the end result can sometimes be similar (you won't see a lot of pro-Nazi arguments these days, whether it's officially proscribed or not). But it's a natural part of living in a society where people can say what they want.

With these protesters, they're going well beyond the point of criticizing the paper, or boycotting it. They aren't just criticizing the piece or the paper (though they're doing that too). They're not just boycotting it by withholding their own support until changes are made. They're trying to get the student government and administration to suppress the paper.

[Adam White]

That's a pretty loose definition of censorship, and I doubt many would agree with it. Censorship typically means there's a power to coerce involved. It's not necessarily the government; media entities self-censor all the time, for instance. Criticizing or even protesting against something isn't nearly at the level of, say, a university stepping in and telling a paper what it can and can't print, or the government. It may rise to disruption, or intimidation, but it's not "censorship".

Perhaps a person with an airhorn is guilty of censorship after a fashion, although that's a lot easier to deal with than a full on institutional suppression. But someone or even a lot of people critiquing or boycotting someone over what they say is most certainly not censorship. I'd agree that the end result can sometimes be similar (you won't see a lot of pro-Nazi arguments these days, whether it's officially proscribed or not). But it's a natural part of living in a society where people can say what they want.

With these protesters, they're going well beyond the point of criticizing the paper, or boycotting it. They aren't just criticizing the piece or the paper (though they're doing that too). They're not just boycotting it by withholding their own support until changes are made. They're trying to get the student government and administration to suppress the paper.

It is censorship. Perhaps the definition offered isn't loose - your definition is artificialy restrictive? It seems that orgs other than the ACLU also agree with the definition. I think that if someone wants tries to stop someone else from seeing or hearing (or saying) something, it's censorship - regardless of whether that person is a gov't apparatchik or not.

But maybe I'm just more of a civil libertarian than you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions.[1]

Governments, private organizations and individuals may engage in censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is called self-censorship. Censorship may be direct or it may be indirect, in which case it is called soft censorship. It occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, child pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/ifcensorshipqanda

Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous. It is no more complicated than someone saying, "Don't let anyone read this book, or buy that magazine, or view that film, because I object to it! " Censors try to use the power of the state to impose their view of what is truthful and appropriate, or offensive and objectionable, on everyone else. Censors pressure public institutions, like libraries, to suppress and remove from public access information they judge inappropriate or dangerous, so that no one else has the chance to read or view the material and make up their own minds about it. The censor wants to prejudge materials for everyone.

http://ncac.org/resource/what-is-censorship/

According to Webster's Dictionary, to "censor" means "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable." The word "censor" originated in ancient Rome, where the government appointed officials to take the census and to supervise public morals. Censorship happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their political or moral values on others by suppressing words, images, or ideas that they find offensive.

A censor, traditionally, is an official whose job it is to examine literature, movies, or other forms of creative expression and to remove or ban anything she considers unsuitable. In this definition, censorship is something the government does. But censorship can also be accomplished very effectively by private groups.

Not all forms of censorship are illegal. When private individuals agitate to eliminate TV programs they dislike, or threaten to boycott the companies that support those programs with advertising dollars, they are certainly trying to censor artistic expression and interfere with the free speech of others. But their actions are perfectly legal; in fact, their protests are protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

[Tacachale]

My point is, people just saying "I don't like you saying xxx" is not censorship under any definition. To a large extent it's just the result of every person getting their say. It sometimes means that very unpopular speech gets drowned out, but that's not censorship in any real sense.