A student newspaper printed an op-ed that asked questions about the "Black Lives Matter" movement. In response, the students protested the newspaper to try to have it shut down.
The president of the school said, "Black lives do matter, but so does free speech".
Per ABC News:
Wesleyan Students Push Boycott of Campus Newspaper
By MICHAEL MELIA, ASSOCIATED PRESS
MIDDLETOWN, Conn. — Sep 24, 2015, 12:56 PM ET
At Wesleyan University, known for its liberal culture, a campaign to shut down the campus newspaper is coming from an unlikely source: its students.
The student government for the liberal arts school is weighing a petition to strip The Wesleyan Argus of funding after some students objected to an opinion piece it published on the Black Lives Matter movement.
Executive Editor Gabe Rosenberg, who has been salvaging discarded batches of the latest edition from campus recycling bins, said the paper is looking into arranging outside financing. He said the newspaper is committed to doing a better job of representing diversity but he disagrees with opponents' tactics.
"I totally agree the newspaper is not a perfect place. We just cannot support their methods," Rosenberg said.
The university president, Michael Roth, has weighed in on the side of the press. In a statement titled "Black lives matter and so does free speech," he and two other administrators objected to what they described as harassment of the newspaper's editors and said the campus should not "demand ideological conformity because people are made uncomfortable."
Frank LoMonte, director of the Student Press Law Center in Washington, said battles with student newspapers are more typically led by members of school administrations or Greek organizations, but the Wesleyan case follows a trend on American campuses toward protecting people from things they find offensive.
"It is worrisome when you see students wanting to silence disagreeable opinions," he said. "It doesn't seem like you can punish people into being more open-minded."
The student opinion piece that ran last week questioned whether the Black Lives Matter movement is achieving anything positive.
The petition argues that The Argus has failed historically to be inclusive of minorities' voices and lists demands including diversity training for all student publications, disposal of copies of The Argus on campus and withholding of funding until they are met.
The Wesleyan Student Assembly discussed the petition on Sunday. The assembly's president, Kate Cullen, said in a prepared statement that it promotes respectful discourse and is hosting another forum on the petition this weekend to discuss next steps and promote community through greater inclusion.
If The Argus does lose funding, LoMonte said, it would have little recourse outside the court of public opinion because, as part of a private institution, it is not protected by the First Amendment.
If The Argus does lose funding, LoMonte said, it would have little recourse outside the court of public opinion because, as part of a private institution, it is not protected by the First Amendment.
And as it is a newspaper paid for and published by the university, the students are within their rights to demand it sends a particular message. You can't really make much of an argument for editorial independence when the paper is an organ of the school - a school that these students all pay to attend.
It makes sense for it to go independent (like the Alligator at UF). That way it can publish what it wants, free from interference.
Those kids got awful worked up over an article that had nothing really objectionable in it.
(http://d2ws0xxnnorfdo.cloudfront.net/meme/449372)
the loudest voice gets what it wants..
W
Quote from: AKIRA on September 25, 2015, 02:03:46 AM
the loudest voice gets what it wants..
Well its a college campus, so whoever is the biggest designated "victim" or most "oppressed" gets what they want.
http://wesleyanargus.com/2015/09/14/of-race-and-sex/
Why Black Lives Matter Isn't What You Think
September 14, 2015, 5:36 pm by Bryan Stascavage, Staff Writer
A 20-year-old man walks into a church and massacres nine people, claiming that he was afraid that America was being taken over by Black Americans, citing American race relations as evidence. About a month later, a man wears a GoPro, tapes himself walking up to a local reporter and a cameraman, and shoots them both on camera, proclaiming racial injustice in this country as his motive.
Police officers are looking over their shoulders as several cops have been targeted and gunned down. The week before classes started, seven officers were killed in the line of duty; a few were execution-style targeted killings.
An officer I talked to put it succinctly: "If they want to come after me, fine. Just come at me head on. Don't shoot me in the back of my head. I'd rather go down with a fighting chance."
Is this an atmosphere created by the police officers and racist elements in society itself? Many, including individuals in the Black Lives Matter movement, believe so.
Or is it because of Black Lives Matter? Many believe that as well, including a police chief who made his remarks after one of his officers was shot and killed—he claimed that Black Lives Matter was responsible for the officer's death. Some want Black Lives Matter labeled as a hate group.
I talked to a Black Lives Matter supporter, Michael Smith '18, who recoiled when I told him I was wondering if the movement was legitimate. This is not questioning their claims of racism among the police, or in society itself. Rather, is the movement itself actually achieving anything positive? Does it have the potential for positive change?
There is evidence to support both views. Police forces around the country are making more of an effort to be more transparent, have undergone investigations to root out racist officers and policies, and have forced the conversation to the front pages after being buried on the back pages for far too long.
On the other hand, following the Baltimore riots, the city saw a big spike in murders. Good officers, like the one I talked to, go to work every day even more worried that they won't come home. The officer's comments reminded me of what soldiers used to say after being hit with IEDs in Iraq. Police forces with a wartime-like mentality are never a good thing.
Smith countered with, "You can't judge an entire movement off the actions of a few extremists."
I responded with, "Isn't that what the movement is doing with the police? Judging an entire profession off the actions of a few members?"
Hence, my concerns that the movement is not legitimate, or at the very least, hypocritical.
It is apparent that the man who shot the reporter and her cameraman isn't a representation of Black Lives Matter. The question is whether or not the movement is setting the conditions of the more extreme or mentally disturbed individuals to commit atrocities.
Smith explained further. "Yes, but the police have an established system of reporting the bad officers. BLM is decentralized, they aren't as organized. You can't hold the more moderate elements responsible for what a crazy person does in their name."
Perhaps. But that doesn't explain Black Lives Matter rallies from cheering after an officer is killed, chanting that they want more pigs to fry like bacon. That wasn't one or two people. The movement also doesn't want to be associated with looters and rioters, calling them opportunistic. But it is plausible that Black Lives Matter has created the conditions for these individuals to exploit for their own personal gain.
I warned in an article last semester that a movement that does not combat its own extremists will quickly run into trouble. The reasons why are now self-evident. If Black Lives Matter is going to be the one responsible for generating these conversations, then a significant portion of that conversation needs to be about peace. They need to stand with police units that lose a member, decrying it with as much passion as they do when a police officer kills an unarmed civilian.
Smith does have a point, though. An organization cannot be labeled based of a small percentage of their membership. There is a reason why so many have shown up to protests across the country: there is clearly something wrong, and wrong enough to motivate them to exit their homes and express their frustration publicly. That is no small effort. The system is clearly failing many, and unfortunately they feel like they will only be listened to if their protests reach the front pages of the news. And so far, they are correct.
But this principle needs to be applied universally. I know many of us here at Wesleyan realize that most police officers are good people simply doing a service for their community, and that there are only a few bad apples. But those chanting to fry the pigs seem to have missed this message.
It boils down to this for me: If vilification and denigration of the police force continues to be a significant portion of Black Lives Matter's message, then I will not support the movement, I cannot support the movement. And many Americans feel the same. I should repeat, I do support many of the efforts by the more moderate activists.
It is advice that I need to take myself. After the Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage nation-wide, a few liberals gloated in a conservative political forum that I like to read. They were surprised by the reaction: every conservative who responded was happy with the ruling.
I realize that moderate conservatives need to speak up more as well. If we had, gay marriage might have been legalized years ago. Instead, I got the feeling that a lot of moderate conservatives were afraid of speaking up about the issue and being labeled as a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
I also understand the frustration of moderate Black Lives Matter members, like the one I talked to, about being stereotyped based off of a few radical and vocal members.
Kim Davis, the misguided clerk who is refusing to hand out marriage licenses, is a perfect example of this. As a conservative, it is infuriating to see one clerk in one city out of the thousands in conservative states making headlines, when the rest are handing out licenses with no issue. One clerk is making headlines and is being held up as evidence that conservatives hate homosexuality. Kim Davis generated a couple hundred supporters, a very small showing.
Yet I am not innocent when it comes to Kim Davis. I could have gone down to the courthouse and joined the counter protest, holding up a sign that says "conservatives for gay marriage rights," and made a statement that Kim Davis is not representative of the mainstream conservative views. I don't blame those who can't support conservatives for not being more vocally pro-gay rights, though many liberal politicians were also silent on the issue during the 1990s and 2000s.
Returning to Black Lives Matter, the country is nervously waiting to see what happens next. The next unarmed civilian to be killed, the next officer to be killed, the next radical racist to take their views to the next level.
At some point Black Lives Matter is going to be confronted with an uncomfortable question, if they haven't already begun asking it: Is this all worth it? Is it worth another riot that destroys a downtown district? Another death, another massacre? At what point will Black Lives Matter go back to the drawing table and rethink how they are approaching the problem?
While there's nothing in that piece that remotely justifies shutting down the paper, it's funded by the school (and it's a private school). This is an issue faced at pretty much every campus paper that's funded that way. One would think that a school like Wesleyan would be strongly defending the paper from the free speech angle, but the "I don't want to hear things that offend or challenge me" lobby is strong at pretty much every school, whether it's mostly liberal, conservative, or whatever.
Good Lord what a bunch of bitches. Write a rebuttal and send it in if you disagree
Quote from: civil42806 on September 25, 2015, 09:11:22 AM
Well its a college campus, so whoever is the biggest designated "victim" or most "oppressed" gets what they want.
Yup, pretty much. Many comedians (of different races, including Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Larry the Cable guy ) don't perform acts on college campuses because of the PC-mania.
Quote from: I-10east on September 25, 2015, 06:16:17 PM
Quote from: civil42806 on September 25, 2015, 09:11:22 AM
Well its a college campus, so whoever is the biggest designated "victim" or most "oppressed" gets what they want.
Yup, pretty much. Many comedians (of different races, including Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, and Larry the Cable guy ) don't perform acts on college campuses because of the PC-mania.
You're wrong. Larry the Cable Guy is not a comedian.
Quote from: fsquid on September 25, 2015, 06:05:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Gunnar on September 26, 2015, 04:34:55 AM
Quote from: fsquid on September 25, 2015, 06:05:53 PM
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.
In my experience, no one group has the market on trying to shut down or censor speech that they object to. Leftists do it (like in this case), conservatives do it, and fairly apolitical groups do it. It seems to have more to do with the ability to mobilize people who also don't want to hear a particular message.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 26, 2015, 08:36:02 AM
In my experience, no one group has the market on trying to shut down or censor speech that they object to. Leftists do it (like in this case), conservatives do it, and fairly apolitical groups do it. It seems to have more to do with the ability to mobilize people who also don't want to hear a particular message.
I agree. I think people on the right don't realize that they have their own form of political correctness. But anyway - part of my point was that the article doesn't really shed any light - or sheds very little light - on why the students were outraged. None of them were interviewed. They may have very reasonable views. It's a bit knee-jerk to just dismiss it as more PC BS.
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2015, 09:21:39 AM
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.
Quote from: I-10east on September 26, 2015, 02:40:19 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2015, 09:21:39 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right-wing_political_correctness)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_correctness)
^^^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.
Quote from: I-10east on September 26, 2015, 07:01:29 PM
^^^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?
Quote from: I-10east on September 26, 2015, 07:01:29 PM
^^^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.
Quote from: Adam White on September 27, 2015, 04:27:57 AM
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.
Quote from: I-10east on September 27, 2015, 07:05:35 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 27, 2015, 04:27:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2015, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: I-10east on September 26, 2015, 02:40:19 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2015, 09:21:39 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right-wing_political_correctness)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_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.
Quote from: JBTripper on September 28, 2015, 10:53:01 AM
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2015, 04:42:05 PM
Quote from: I-10east on September 26, 2015, 02:40:19 PM
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2015, 09:21:39 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Right-wing_political_correctness)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservative_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.
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.
Sorry - I don't agree at all.
Edit: and neither does the ACLU https://www.aclu.org/what-censorship (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.
Quote from: Adam White on September 26, 2015, 06:17:41 AM
Quote from: Gunnar on September 26, 2015, 04:34:55 AM
Quote from: fsquid on September 25, 2015, 06:05:53 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 28, 2015, 12:04:09 PM
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 (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 (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/ (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.
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.
Quote from: Tacachale on September 28, 2015, 02:54:48 PM
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.
But groups of people doing it are another thing - or more accurately, people trying to stop other people from saying or hearing/reading things is. And that was my point - both Sinead O'Connor and the Dixie Chicks were victims of right-wing PC censorship.
Quote from: Adam White on September 28, 2015, 02:56:56 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on September 28, 2015, 02:54:48 PM
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.
But groups of people doing it are another thing - or more accurately, people trying to stop other people from saying or hearing/reading things is. And that was my point - both Sinead O'Connor and the Dixie Chicks were victims of right-wing PC censorship.
I agree with Stephen. O'Connor and the Dixie Chicks were at most "victims" of saying/doing things that weren't received very positively. No one, so far as I know, tried to stop them from expressing themselves, or preventing others from hearing and seeing it. The line is, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
I think you're trying to make a point that it's not only leftists who do this kind of thing. I'd agree with that. In some spheres, such as the comparatively liberal environment of college, leftists probably do it the most, but there are plenty of other areas where folks of other stripes are as bad or worse. Book banning moves, for example, seem to be mostly driven by conservative or relatively apolitical "think of the children" types. I don't think the liberal "PC" crowd was behind the bannings of, for example, "Harry Potter", "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian", or "And Tango Makes Three".
I disagree, but it's not worth getting into a bun fight over. Needless to say, my recollection of what happened to both the Dixie Chicks and O'Connor is very different.