City University of London Students Vote to Ban Tabloid News.

[Forty Two]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... il-express

O.k., well, the ban has no teeth, but it goes to show how big a problem the progressive mindset has become. They now want tabloid newspapers banned from campus because they don't like what's reported in there. Apparently the Sun demonizes the poor, and writes overtly sexist articles.

Thus, in the name of banning fascism, they vote to ban tabloid newspapers from a public institution in a free country.

[cronus]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... il-express

O.k., well, the ban has no teeth, but it goes to show how big a problem the progressive mindset has become. They now want tabloid newspapers banned from campus because they don't like what's reported in there. Apparently the Sun demonizes the poor, and writes overtly sexist articles.

Thus, in the name of banning fascism, they vote to ban tabloid newspapers from a public institution in a free country.

It's missing Page 3. That's enough for a boycott in itself.

[Svartalf]

Indeed, the sun lost all appeal when it slotted out its p3 gal.
As for the daily fail, I see why a respectable journalism school would want to ban it, don't inculcate bad habits in the student body.
If the express is of the same cloth as the other two, well, that's bad enough to be ban worthy.

[Brian Peacock]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... il-express

O.k., well, the ban has no teeth, but it goes to show how big a problem the progressive mindset has become. They now want tabloid newspapers banned from campus because they don't like what's reported in there. Apparently the Sun demonizes the poor, and writes overtly sexist articles.

Thus, in the name of banning fascism, they vote to ban tabloid newspapers from a public institution in a free country.

Are you saying that tabloid newspapers should be obligatory reading for students or just that they have no legitimate cause to protest and oppose fascism and social divisiveness in the UK media?

[NineBerry]

They didn't vote to ban anything. if you look at the text (https://www.culsu.co.uk/pageassets/stud ... -copy.docx) the only part that could be interpreted as such is this statement:

This Union Resolves:
1. That there is no place for the Sun, Daily Mail or Express (In their current form) on City, University of London campuses or properties.

However, since the union has no power to legislate such matters, it is clear that this is to be understood as a moral statement not the institution of any ban. Like if they declared "There is no place for hate in our university" this doesn't mean there is any power to stop people from hating someone else.

[Forty Two]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/ ... il-express

O.k., well, the ban has no teeth, but it goes to show how big a problem the progressive mindset has become. They now want tabloid newspapers banned from campus because they don't like what's reported in there. Apparently the Sun demonizes the poor, and writes overtly sexist articles.

Thus, in the name of banning fascism, they vote to ban tabloid newspapers from a public institution in a free country.

Are you saying that tabloid newspapers should be obligatory reading for students or just that they have no legitimate cause to protest and oppose fascism and social divisiveness in the UK media?

Apparently, they aren't sold on campus now. The ban is that there is no place for them on campus. LOL. I guess they don't even want them brought on campus, or accessed via campus computers.

So, no, they shouldn't be "obligatory reading," as nothing is "obligatory reading" unless it is assigned as part of a course.

Oppose "social divisiveness." Oppose it all you want. I think SJWs and Progressives are socially divisive. Maybe we should take a vote on whether SJWs have a place on campus. Maybe the vote should be to ban the Weekly Worker newspaper? Is there a place on campus for Communist newspapers?

[Forty Two]

They didn't vote to ban anything. if you look at the text (https://www.culsu.co.uk/pageassets/stud ... -copy.docx) the only part that could be interpreted as such is this statement:

This Union Resolves:
1. That there is no place for the Sun, Daily Mail or Express (In their current form) on City, University of London campuses or properties.

However, since the union has no power to legislate such matters, it is clear that this is to be understood as a moral statement not the institution of any ban. Like if they declared "There is no place for hate in our university" this doesn't mean there is any power to stop people from hating someone else.

I was clear in the original post that it had no teeth or enforcement power.

Further, even in the terms you put it, it's an abominable embarrassment to a university or university student group. "No place for hate on campus?" The very statement that there is no place for hate on campus is an absurdity that only a complete idiot could agree with. Of course there are places for hate on campus. You don't think anti-Trump or anti-Nigel Farrage protesters "hate" Trump, Farrage, Republicans or the UKiP? Of course they do. What about in the library? There is no place for hateful publications there? Mein Kampf? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Holocaust Denial publications? Communist Manifesto? Machiavelli's the Prince? There is no place for fascist ideas on campus? Really? Like "The Doctrines of Fascism" by Benito Mussolini? The Road to Power by Joseph Stalin? Is there a place for the publications and newspapers of the Communist Party of the UK?

The student union's statement is, in my view, a profoundly immoral one, clothed in a suit of righteous armor. We're against hate and fascism, they say. So, there is no place on campus for ideas from the newspapers we don't like.

And, of course, that doesn't even get to the point that most of what is published in the Sun and the Fail can't legitimately be described as "fascist" or "hate speech." These jackass Progressive ban-happy jerkoffs use the rubric of fascism and hate to label things like Brexit and support for Brexit. They label advocacy of immigration reforms as xenophobia and hate speech and racism. We all know they do this. They use the language of hate to silence political opinions they don't like.

Sure, this "ban" has no teeth, but these jackasses are just learning the tools of the Progressive SJW trade, and they are getting themselves convinced that a ban of this kind of material would be good. This provision has no teeth because they aren't in a position to enforce it. Give these crackpots the ability to add teeth to it, and do you think they'd hesitate to bite down hard?

[NineBerry]

There is no place for polls, that do you not allow "bacon" as a possible answer, on Rationalia!

[NineBerry]

Sure, this "ban" has no teeth, but these jackasses are just learning the tools of the Progressive SJW trade, and they are getting themselves convinced that a ban of this kind of material would be good. This provision has no teeth because they aren't in a position to enforce it. Give these crackpots the ability to add teeth to it, and do you think they'd hesitate to bite down hard?

If you could, would you ban student unions from making proclamations you don't agree with?

[Forty Two]

Sure, this "ban" has no teeth, but these jackasses are just learning the tools of the Progressive SJW trade, and they are getting themselves convinced that a ban of this kind of material would be good. This provision has no teeth because they aren't in a position to enforce it. Give these crackpots the ability to add teeth to it, and do you think they'd hesitate to bite down hard?

If you could, would you ban student unions from making proclamations you don't agree with?

No. I would vociferously argue against their idiocy.

[NineBerry]

So, you claim for yourself the right to argue against something you don't like but think the student union shouldn't have the right to argue against what they don't like?

[Forty Two]

So, you claim for yourself the right to argue against something you don't like but think the student union shouldn't have the right to argue against what they don't like?

They have the right to argue against what they don't like, and I don't suggest they shouldn't have that right. My argument that they're idiots and their position on this issue is idiotic and wrong doesn't deny them any rights, nor does it constitute advocacy of a denial of their rights.

I strongly suspect, however, that if they had the power, they would outlaw what they consider to be hateful or divisive rhetoric. That's one of the reasons they're a pack of total cock-knockers and fuckwits.

[Strontium Dog]

They're right about these newspapers, though, which should mean something.

Moaning about "bans" is preposterous, since nobody would ever be in a position to ban a legitimate newspaper in a free country.

You can hardly buy the S*n up here, ever since they printed that pack of lies about Liverpool fans, but it hasn't been banned; rather, retailers voluntarily do not stock it.

[Brian Peacock]

Troof blud.

[Svartalf]

good to now, though I'd never buy the sun anywhere, and don't think I'll ever visit liverpool.