SU ban Daily Mail from campus shops

blubloblu

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

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

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

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

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

meoklmrk91

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

blubloblu

meoklmrk91 wrote: »

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

Duke Leonal Felmet

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

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

Dubs

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

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.

28064212

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bottleopener

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

enfant terrible wrote: »

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

hehe.

Jehuty42

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

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

Jegger

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

lucernarian

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

o1s1n

What are broke students going to wipe their arses with now though?

Hande hoche!

o1s1n wrote: »

What are broke students going to wipe their arses with now though?

Metro Herald.

Denerick

I'm no fan of the Daily Mail (More of a self righteous Guardian type) but this is just typical of the double standards inherent in student politics.

Everyone is entitled to their own view/opinion, so long as it conforms to the 'consensus' unthinking fake 'liberalism' of accepted 'student' opinion... IE, Fúcking fascism.

The case made is that as a result of perceived shoddy journalism the Mail must be banned until an apology is printed... Surely students can make their own choice, as autonomous individuals, whether they can purchase the paper of not? Surely as freethinking adults we should be allowed to decide not only how to spend our money, but on what we are entitled to read in our supposed 'student' shop?

This is gross interference in the personal liberties of Trinity students and yet another example of the self evident fact that the house six clique have nothing better to do than manufacture outrage and censor/ban things they don't like so as to make themselves feel relevant or useful.

I don't see why people of principal require an organisation to boycott a newspaper for them. By all means organise a silly little campaign to discourage people reading the Mail or whatever, but to take the draconian step of outright censorship is absurd and to anyone schooled in even the most basic political philosophy it is surely indicative of the inexorable drift into serfdom.

This is yet another example of the sheer irrelevance of the Student Union. It exists solely so as to massage the egos of hacks and megalomaniacs.

28064212

Denerick wrote: »

This is yet another example of the sheer irrelevance of the Student Union. It exists solely so as to massage the egos of hacks and megalomaniacs.

On the basis of that post, the SU shop would be required to stock every single newspaper in the world, so as not to restrict the "freethinking adult's" choice

SD7792

I really don't see how this is such an obscene decision by the SU. The Daily Mail clearly published complete lies which, had the circumstances been different, could have affected whether this student lived or died.

The SU can decide what to sell and what not to sell in their own shops and if all you avid Daily Mail readers want to read it so desperately, just walk 200m further to the Spar across the road?

Denerick

28064212 wrote: »

On the basis of that post, the SU shop would be required to stock every single newspaper in the world, so as not to restrict the "freethinking adult's" choice

Ludicrous argument. The relevant point - which you choose to overlook - is that the Mail previously was on sale in SU shops and was removed for political reasons. There is clearly a sufficient demand for it otherwise it wouldn't be stocked. You cannot say that about your average Japanese or Australian daily. A very weak argument indeed.

I really don't see how this is such an obscene decision by the SU. The Daily Mail clearly published complete lies which, had the circumstances been different, could have affected whether this student lived or died.

If you are so offended by the 'obscene lies' of the Daily Mail, don't buy it. Don't inflict your own agenda on others.

The SU can decide what to sell and what not to sell in their own shops and if all you avid Daily Mail readers want to read it so desperately, just walk 200m further to the Spar across the road?

This right here is why I'm misanthropic. Just because I think 'thoughtcrime' is an absurd idea I'm apparantly an 'avid Daily Mail reader'.

Go read some Locke or something. You've a world class library at your disposal...

galwayjohn89

Really don't get all this fuss over nothing.


SU own the shops. They decided what to sell. They don't want to sell the daily mail. End of. People don't seem to understand what freedom of speech is.

blubloblu

Out of interest, does anyone else know of other shops that refuse to stock certain newspapers on a point of principle?

Denerick

Vuzuggu wrote: »

Really don't get all this fuss over nothing.


SU own the shops. They decided what to sell. They don't want to sell the daily mail. End of. People don't seem to understand what freedom of speech is.

The SU is supposed to be a union of students, not an oligarchic house 6 clique who make decrees from on high about what is in our 'best interests'.


All these arguments on behalf of censorship are really something to behold.

Moshi_Moshi

And nothing of value was lost.

lucernarian

Denerick wrote: »

The SU is supposed to be a union of students, not an oligarchic house 6 clique who make decrees from on high about what is in our 'best interests'.


All these arguments on behalf of censorship are really something to behold.

This is notwithstanding the inherent right of a shop to sell whatever they want within the confines of law. As for the council vote, it's unjustified to describe it as a decree from on high. It was neither a decree nor from on high, being voted on as it was mainly by regular class reps. One doesn't have the right to inflict their own agenda on what was the business of the SU to make a commercial decision.

The only way this can really be compared to censorship in the conventional meaning is if you call it self-imposed censorship and even that is part and parcel of a society where freedom of expression (including specifically not expressing something without imposing that on others) is sacrosanct.

To answer another question, many shops in Liverpool no longer sell the Sun newspaper over its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster.

Denerick

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

This is notwithstanding the inherent right of a shop to sell whatever they want within the confines of law. As for the council vote, it's unjustified to describe it as a decree from on high. It was neither a decree nor from on high, being voted on as it was mainly by regular class reps. One doesn't have the right to inflict their own agenda on what was the business of the SU to make a commercial decision.

I'm sure the party system was fully behind it. Reminiscent of the Soviet Union circa 1970.

The only way this can really be compared to censorship in the conventional meaning is if you call it self-imposed censorship and even that is part and parcel of a society where freedom of expression (including specifically not expressing something without imposing that on others) is sacrosanct.

It is self imposed censorship. I couldn't give two damns about that though to be honest, its the principal that annoys me. This is yet another example of a pointless organisation desperately trying to assert its relevancy and doing so in an obnoxious fashion.

lucernarian

Denerick wrote: »

It is self imposed censorship. I couldn't give two damns about that though to be honest, its the principal that annoys me. This is yet another example of a pointless organisation desperately trying to assert its relevancy and doing so in an obnoxious fashion.

You've a strange idea of it being pointless when you can have such a strong set of views on it. Surely its irrelevancy should permeate through to what you say about it?

You haven't yet addressed the most fundamental principle here, the right of a commercial entity to sell whatever it wants. Obnoxiousness and arrogance and all of that stuff is irrelevant, there are plenty of other examples where that can be seen without discussing a matter that has no bearing whatsoever on the wellbeing of students or the quality of education in TCD.

Denerick

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

You've a strange idea of it being pointless when you can have such a strong set of views on it. Surely its irrelevancy should permeate through to what you say about it?

You haven't yet addressed the most fundamental principle here, the right of a commercial entity to sell whatever it wants. Obnoxiousness and arrogance and all of that stuff is irrelevant, there are plenty of other examples where that can be seen without discussing a matter that has no bearing whatsoever on the wellbeing of students or the quality of education in TCD.

If its the case of a newsagent and they make a conscious decision not to stock a certain newspaper, that is their business and they can live or die from the commercial consequences. When its done by an organisation that purports to speak for the student body it is a political act. The act of preventing the sale of this particularl product is a violent one and a direct affront to the free choice of Trinity students to buy and read whatever they wish.

Ravelleman

Denerick wrote: »

The act of preventing the sale of this particularl product is a violent one and a direct affront to the free choice of Trinity students to buy and read whatever they wish.

Indeed, Trinity students will surely die of exhaustion while crossing the road to Spar in search of their Daily Mail.

---

I'm pretty surprised that this even registers on people's consciousness. Of all the things one could be outraged by, the decision to temporarily ban the sale of a newspaper that, I would guess, few students even read, seems totally insignificant.

Comparison with the Soviet Union is ludicrous. But at least Hitler hasn't been mentioned yet - they're teaching you something.

This thread is lame, just like the Students' Union.

Denerick

Ravelleman wrote: »

Indeed, Trinity students will surely die of exhaustion while crossing the road to Spar in search of their Daily Mail.

---

I'm pretty surprised that this even registers on people's consciousness. Of all the things one could be outraged by, the decision to temporarily ban the sale of a newspaper that, I would guess, few students even read, seems totally insignificant.

Comparison with the Soviet Union is ludicrous. But at least Hitler hasn't been mentioned yet - they're teaching you something.

This thread is lame, just like the Students' Union.

First they came for the right wing Daily Mail readers, but I did nothing, for I was not a right wing Daily Mail reader...

amacachi

Denerick wrote: »

First they came for the right wing Daily Mail readers, but I did nothing, for I was not a right wing Daily Mail reader...

You really are a bloody Guardian reader aren't you!? :pac:

Ahoyhoy

Lets be honest here, how many Trinity students do you think actually read the Daily Mail? We all know it's the "support staff" that are going to have to cross the road to the spar to buy their paper. Yours truly will be thanking the SU on bended knee if one of the security guards gets hit by a bike courier. Or possibly on hands and knees since I'd be doubled over laughing in schadenfreudic* glee.



*fairly sure that's not a word but I don't care

Denerick

Ahoyhoy wrote: »

Lets be honest here, how many Trinity students do you think actually read the Daily Mail? We all know it's the "support staff" that are going to have to cross the road to the spar to buy their paper. Yours truly will be thanking the SU on bended knee if one of the security guards gets hit by a bike courier. Or possibly on hands and knees since I'd be doubled over laughing in schadenfreudic* glee.



*fairly sure that's not a word but I don't care

That has to be one of the most elitist posts I've ever seen on the TCD boards.

This is why people hate Trinity students. No other college in the country provokes such derision and loathing.

Pet

Way to make yourself sound like a total cúnt, Ahoyhoy.