SU ban Daily Mail from campus shops

blubloblu · 07-12-2011 11:06AM #1

In response to the Daily Mail's sensationalist lies about the death of Caolan Mulrooney, the SU have decided to ban its sale from their campus shops.
It was a despicable exercise in what could barely be called journalism. Sadly, it's not even exceptional for the Daily Mail.
That said, banning a newspaper is a pretty serious step.
Has Trinity become intolerant of freedom of expression?

zam · 07-12-2011 11:10AM

It's an odd one. As has been said, where do you draw the line really? So many publications sold in SU shops are potentially ban-worthy so it seems a bit rash to ban just Daily Mail. However part of me agrees with the step given the actual content of the story...

Dubs · 07-12-2011 11:44AM

It's been banned until an apology is printed.

And under the circumstances of the ban I don't think freedom of expression really comes into account. For one, the article in question wasn't freedom of expression, it was just completely untrue. The decision to ban it was also voted on by the couple hundred odd students at the SU council, it wasn't as if the higher ups just decided to ban it with out consultation.

Incidentally, did you know all Nestle products are banned from SU shops because of a past referendum? :eek: Fun fact!

blubloblu · 07-12-2011 11:53AM

Dubs wrote: »

It's been banned until an apology is printed.

And under the circumstances of the ban I don't think freedom of expression really comes into account. For one, the article in question wasn't freedom of expression, it was just completely untrue.

You're preventing the publication of the rest of their issues, not the untrue one. Will the SU now fact check every publication it receives before allowing its sale?

The decision to ban it was also voted on by the couple hundred odd students at the SU council, it wasn't as if the higher ups just decided to ban it with out consultation.

How often do motions proposed by the higher ups get defeated?

Incidentally, did you know all Nestle products are banned from SU shops because of a past referendum? :eek: Fun fact!

don't mind that really. Food products don't really fall under freedom of expression and at least the students decided.

getz · 07-12-2011 11:54AM

and these young people are the future leaders of irelands business and goverment, shakes head

meoklmrk91 · 07-12-2011 11:56AM

Would somebody please post a link to the article in question.

blubloblu · 07-12-2011 12:05PM

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

Would somebody please post a link to the article in question.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-12-2011 12:05PM

Dubs wrote: »

It's been banned until an apology is printed.

And under the circumstances of the ban I don't think freedom of expression really comes into account. For one, the article in question wasn't freedom of expression, it was just completely untrue. The decision to ban it was also voted on by the couple hundred odd students at the SU council, it wasn't as if the higher ups just decided to ban it with out consultation.

Incidentally, did you know all Nestle products are banned from SU shops because of a past referendum? :eek: Fun fact!

Freedom of expression is the right to say 2+2=5.

PhatPiggins · 07-12-2011 12:13PM

Not trying to offend anyone but what part of that article is incorrect?

Dubs · 07-12-2011 12:14PM

blubloblu wrote: »

You're preventing the publication of the rest of their issues, not the untrue one. Will the SU now fact check every publication it receives before allowing its sale?

Firstly, just want to say that I'm not speaking for the SU here, just giving my opinion :P

And no, of course they aren't going to. I think that this matter only arose because of how serious the lie was. It wasn't as if they made up some story about Georgia Salpa getting the shift in Copper's last week. They said that the Gardaí had found the dead body of a missing Cork student when there had been no such statement made, something that was obviously going to negatively affect family and friends. It's also something that could even have interferred with the search when there were so many people discussing it online who were then commenting that the body had already been found, because of this article.

How often do motions proposed by the higher ups get defeated?

More often than you'd think, although you are right. The sabats do seem to have a larger than normal influence over other students when motions are brought up and looks to be a bit of a problem. This wasn't brought up by a sabat though.

don't mind that really. Food products don't really fall under freedom of expression and at least the students decided.

I only mentioned it because I thought it was interesting :P And the students did vote on this, or at least all of the class reps, the people the students voted to represent them for such discussions, did.

blubloblu · 07-12-2011 12:18PM

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Not trying to offend anyone but what part of that article is incorrect?

It's cut off on the right there.
He went missing in the early hours of Friday morning. In Saturday's paper, they stated that his body was found in the river Lee. This was in no way true, the search was still ongoing and it wasn't until yesterday they found him in the back yard of a motorbike shop.

07-12-2011 12:19PM

PhatPiggins wrote: »

Not trying to offend anyone but what part of that article is incorrect?

The body wasn't found, they just made that part up

Also, calling it a "banning" seems to be sensationalist. The SU runs the shops, correct? So they've made a decision not to stock a particular paper. Is Le Monde available in the SU shops? If no, is it considered to be "banned"

blubloblu · 07-12-2011 12:20PM

Dubs wrote: »

I only mentioned it because I thought it was interesting :P And the students did vote on this, or at least all of the class reps, the people the students voted to represent them for such discussions, did.

This wasn't on the agenda published, and I really doubt that the majority of class reps poll their classes to see which way they should vote on an issue.

Jonathan · 07-12-2011 12:30PM

The Daily Mail is pure rubbish, and I never read it. What they did on Saturday was sensationalist and insensitive, but banning the newspaper is absurd.

It was the same ****e with the SU Coke Cola ban a few years ago. If the SU hacks are so adamant that the student body is so outraged by this, they will stop buying it on their own accord. No need to ban it from SU shops just to reinforce the issue.

Dubs · 07-12-2011 12:43PM

blubloblu wrote: »

This wasn't on the agenda published, and I really doubt that the majority of class reps poll their classes to see which way they should vote on an issue.

Think the reason for it not being on the agenda was because the submission date for the agenda was on Friday and the article was only published on the Saturday so it was only brought up by someone yesterday.

And no, I doubt they do too. But part of that has to lie with the classes, if they want to express their opinions they can always show up at council or discuss it with their reps. Granted that couldn't be done this time because it was brought up so suddenly but people are elected to make decisions based on what they feel would be the opinion of the people they represent under circumstances such a motion like this being brought up so suddenly.

Pretty sure there's going to be a discussion on the whole thing at the next council anyways that anyone can speak at

Dubs · 07-12-2011 01:04PM

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Freedom of expression is the right to say 2+2=5.

Jonathan wrote: »

The Daily Mail is pure rubbish, and I never read it. What they did on Saturday was sensationalist and insensitive, but banning the newspaper is absurd.

It was the same ****e with the SU Coke Cola ban a few years ago. If the SU hacks are so adamant that the student body is so outraged by this, they will stop buying it on their own accord. No need to ban it from SU shops just to reinforce the issue.

I think the permanent banning of the Daily Mail would be completely over the top and I would be against it, because of freedom of expression and whatever else.

But I'd consider the point of keeping it out of SU shops until an apology is made to be more of a protest than anything. If nobody makes any sort of noise against them because of this then what's to stop them from printing more front page articles like this in the future?

PeterTwo · 07-12-2011 01:25PM

The fact of the matter is that the Daily Mail potentially put an 18 year old's life in danger by way of careless journalism. By stating that the body was found, and stating this as a fact, people who read the article and who, in some way or another, could have aided in the search for Caolan may have decided not to do so.

Although consequently the article had no affect on the well-being of Caolan, the potential was there to cause serious harm to an innocent victim.

The minimum required of the Daily Mail now is a public apology.

PhatPiggins · 07-12-2011 01:46PM

blubloblu wrote: »

It's cut off on the right there.
He went missing in the early hours of Friday morning. In Saturday's paper, they stated that his body was found in the river Lee. This was in no way true, the search was still ongoing and it wasn't until yesterday they found him in the back yard of a motorbike shop.

Fair enough thats pretty tasteless alright

enfant terrible · 07-12-2011 01:50PM

I'm sure if it was the Guardian they'd do the same.

Bottleopener · 07-12-2011 02:30PM

Dubs wrote: »

I think the permanent banning of the Daily Mail would be completely over the top and I would be against it, because of freedom of expression and whatever else.

But I'd consider the point of keeping it out of SU shops until an apology is made to be more of a protest than anything. If nobody makes any sort of noise against them because of this then what's to stop them from printing more front page articles like this in the future?

Completely agree here. Correct course of action in my opinion.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 07-12-2011 02:55PM

enfant terrible wrote: »

I'm sure if it was the Guardian they'd do the same.

hehe.

Jehuty42 · 07-12-2011 04:06PM

PeterTwo wrote: »

put an 18 year old's life in danger by way of careless journalism.

Sorry I honestly can't see how that is in any way implied by the article linked earlier. Am I missing something big here?

galwayjohn89 · 07-12-2011 04:17PM

They said his body was found when he was still missing. People who read this might have otherwise helped out in the search.

Jegger · 08-12-2011 11:36AM

I know this is off the point but they should ban the University Times. It`s awful awful stuff altogether, it`s on par with the Metro-Herald.

electrogrimey · 09-12-2011 03:46AM

Jegger wrote: »

I know this is off the point but they should ban the University Times. It`s awful awful stuff altogether, it`s on par with the Metro-Herald.

Ents too while we're at it. They're the entertainment equivalent of the Metro-Herald.

amacachi · 09-12-2011 03:59AM

They shouldn't ban the sale, just have alarms attached to sensors so if anyone even picks up a copy an alarm goes off and a flashing arrow falls from the ceiling to point at them.

Duke Leonal Felmet · 09-12-2011 10:42AM

amacachi wrote: »

They shouldn't ban the sale, just have alarms attached to sensors so if anyone even picks up a copy an alarm goes off and a flashing arrow falls from the ceiling to point at them.

Good idea. I would recommend a 'pretentious twat' sign to pop up anytime someone buys The Guardian.

lucernarian · 09-12-2011 11:09AM

I think there would be a clear freedom of expression issue if there was a move to stop any daily mail copies being read on campus. For the SU to decide that their shops will not stock a particular newspaper is their own commercial decision to make. The SU's prerogative to decide what they sell in their own shops (in accordance with law) doesn't count as some violation of civil liberties in any way. It's not a decision that represents the views of all students and rightly so.

I also think that there was never a need for a referendum to stop selling coke in the SU shops and they should just have suffered the commercial consequences of their principled stand.

Though if the Student Union shops are regarded as a student service in some way then that would change matters.

blubloblu · 09-12-2011 12:08PM

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I think there would be a clear freedom of expression issue if there was a move to stop any daily mail copies being read on campus. For the SU to decide that their shops will not stock a particular newspaper is their own commercial decision to make. The SU's prerogative to decide what they sell in their own shops (in accordance with law) doesn't count as some violation of civil liberties in any way. It's not a decision that represents the views of all students and rightly so.

I also think that there was never a need for a referendum to stop selling coke in the SU shops and they should just have suffered the commercial consequences of their principled stand.

Though if the Student Union shops are regarded as a student service in some way then that would change matters.

It's not a commercial decision though, it's a political one.

WhatNowForUs? · 09-12-2011 12:19PM

In the interests of freedom of thought that paper should be banned permanently

lucernarian · 09-12-2011 01:16PM

blubloblu wrote: »

It's not a commercial decision though, it's a political one.

The reasoning is indeed a point of principle (but political?) but the decision is still their to make as managers/owners of a business, assuming the SU shops have no particular role or guiding principles under SU constitution.

What I'm basically saying is: It's fine to criticise the SU for their decision and say that it was kneejerk and so on but I see no way how this could be construed as the hacks oppressing our freedom of expression etc

SU ban Daily Mail from campus shops

Comments