SU ban Daily Mail from campus shops

o1s1n · 09-12-2011 01:21PM

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

Hande hoche! · 09-12-2011 02:33PM

o1s1n wrote: »

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

Metro Herald.

Denerick · 10-12-2011 02:16AM

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.

10-12-2011 10:54AM

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 · 10-12-2011 02:09PM

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 · 10-12-2011 05:19PM

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 · 10-12-2011 10:13PM

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 · 10-12-2011 10:23PM

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

Denerick · 11-12-2011 02:22PM

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 · 11-12-2011 06:32PM

And nothing of value was lost.

lucernarian · 11-12-2011 10:21PM

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 · 11-12-2011 10:34PM

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 · 11-12-2011 10:54PM

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 · 11-12-2011 11:58PM

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 · 12-12-2011 02:06AM

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 · 12-12-2011 08:21PM

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 · 12-12-2011 08:25PM

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 · 14-12-2011 09:22PM

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 · 14-12-2011 09:29PM

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 · 14-12-2011 10:41PM

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

Ahoyhoy · 15-12-2011 01:24AM

It was a joke you twats. This is why the internet needs a font to denote sarcasm.

Also Denerick is in no position to lecture on the inspiration of loathing.

Although in all genuine seriousness there are some real sadistic bastards working with TCD security.

StinkyMunkey · 15-12-2011 06:38PM

A good job none of the students newspapers print anything that is untrue.

Anyone who believes half what is in the newspapers needs their head examined anyway.

Mind you its an interesting concept, ban anything you dont agree with. Dont they do that in China???

konstantinople · 19-12-2011 09:17PM

Denerick wrote: »

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

Aye, but you don't! You've been posting here for years, giving out yards and ranting and raving about about the SU. Man, move on. You should have left your angst with this student organisation in the Exam Hall when you graduated.

Denerick · 19-12-2011 11:19PM

konstantinople wrote: »

Aye, but you don't! You've been posting here for years, giving out yards and ranting and raving about about the SU. Man, move on. You should have left your angst with this student organisation in the Exam Hall when you graduated.

Are you a hack?

konstantinople · 19-12-2011 11:57PM

Denerick wrote: »

Are you a hack?

For the love of... Is this what you talk about with friends? Do they get weirded out when you still complain about Trinity hacks? You know there are hacks in the grown up world too, you could have a go at them, not complaining about the "politics" of some students presumably much younger than you. All I'm saying mate is move on... I know the world is a scary place, but it's OK, go on, take that first step!

P.S. I was in first year when you were in SS year, posting and ranting about SU hacks. Imagine my surprise when I come back much later and find the same guy? Maybe your not the same guy and they just find the guy with the biggest bee in his or her bonnet and knight them "Denerick". I'd have much more faith in humanity if this were the case.

lucernarian · 20-12-2011 12:50AM

Denerick wrote: »

Are you a hack?

And is that a relevant response? I mean, I don't need to give a damn about whatever you've posted here to see that you want to compare the actions of the SU's council to the type of censorship that exists under mildly oppressive regimes or worse besides. That's an affront to the visible and quantifiable restrictions on the freedom of people most of the world suffer from in some way. The biggest example, China, is an obvious one of silent censorship along with overt suppression of external ideas. Talking about "violent" censorship is not a very good correlation to make with even the most ludicrous rumours of SU immorality or incompetence.

The ironic thing is that you do not see your own argument as a challenge to the right of a self-limited organisation to excercise its choice of what to sell in a shop for whatever legally valid reason. Seemingly based on the feeble and naive notion that the SU, aiming to represent all students, ought to represent nearly all the students in their choice of daily newspaper in some shop. And based on the assumption that they want to reeducate students in what paper to buy rather than simply not contribute financially to the paper's operations while this is ongoing.

Denerick · 20-12-2011 11:46PM

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

The ironic thing is that you do not see your own argument as a challenge to the right of a self-limited organisation to excercise its choice of what to sell in a shop for whatever legally valid reason. Seemingly based on the feeble and naive notion that the SU, aiming to represent all students, ought to represent nearly all the students in their choice of daily newspaper in some shop. And based on the assumption that they want to reeducate students in what paper to buy rather than simply not contribute financially to the paper's operations while this is ongoing.

I've bolded the most absurd part of that post. I have this opinion - strange, I know, and quite rare these days - that unrepresentative organisations do not have an inherent mandate to censor that which they dislike for shallow political reasons. I don't know where you're getting this notion that I think the SU has to represent all students. I believe the SU to be entirely irrelevant in every imaginable way and that this stunt is merely a vehicle by which SU hacks massage their own inflated ego's and sense of self worth. Both the motive and the principle is wrong, and should be roundly ridiculed by all men of good conscience.

The comparisons with the Soviet Union is self consciously hyperbolic, and to take it at face value is a rather uninspired interpretation of the post in question.

lucernarian · 21-12-2011 10:33AM

You cannot say the people involved are of no relevance and in the same breath see it as a matter of "good conscience" to oppose what they have done.

Frankly, your posts that have have highlighted this so-called censorship and attack on freedom of expression were uninspiring themselves. I couldn't accept such drivel on a subject while the clear principle of people deciding what to sell in their own shops is repeatedly ignored by your good self. Typing out of both sides of your mouth perhaps?! With this logical fallacy in mind, I cannot see your true stance on this coming from anywhere but an anti-SU agenda. A strange thing to have for such an irrelevant organisation. Of course, irrelevant organisations are not deserving of scarce resources in College and is a fair way to look at the SU but this issue is apparently a matter of principle.

blubloblu · 24-01-2012 10:06PM

Dubs wrote: »

It's been banned until an apology is printed.

So, an apology was printed on the day the SU banned it. Too bad our representatives don't check these things out.

Now, they've voted to keep the ban in place. What justification was given for the continuation?

Banning a newspaper should not be such a lightly made decision. I have lost confidence in this SU.

Larianne · 25-01-2012 12:22AM

blubloblu wrote: »

So, an apology was printed on the day the SU banned it. Too bad our representatives don't check these things out.

Now, they've voted to keep the ban in place. What justification was given for the continuation?

Banning a newspaper should not be such a lightly made decision. I have lost confidence in this SU.

Were you there this evening? You could have given a good reason to vote for the motion to be passed yourself.

SU ban Daily Mail from campus shops

Comments