Comments on: Another reason to be glad that the ‘Net wasn’t full-blown when I was starting college.

By: JGH

JGH — Wed, 19 May 2010 12:54:48 +0000

“From a practical standpoint, how could a college eliminate from its presence a website it finds offensive? ”

Ban the IP address from university servers. There. Done.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Mon, 17 May 2010 19:37:40 +0000

I’m leery of “slippery slope” arguments, charlemagneinsweats. I mean, that’s the name of a logical fallacy for a reason.

And even though I am deeply distrustful of Admin, generally, this is the sort of thing that I think it’s good for. Not across-the-bar banninating, but addressing, on a large scale, a problem that affects a campus. I don’t know that banning it is even possible, but making clear that participating in sites like CACB is unacceptable, against the school’s ethics/honor code or whatever, and possibly criminally actionable (not by the school itself) seems like a no-brainer.

I’m open to your ideas of how else to handle the situation, though.

By: baraqiel

baraqiel — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:35:59 +0000

“Does no one else feel it’s short-sighted to start banning “offensive” content from campus?”

I’m getting really sick of that argument, honestly. There is a middle ground between Soviet Russia and letting anyone say anything at any time. When “offensive” content is harassment of students, no, I don’t feel that it’s short-sighted to ban that.

By: charlemagneinsweats

charlemagneinsweats — Mon, 17 May 2010 18:10:15 +0000

From a practical standpoint, how could a college eliminate from its presence a website it finds offensive? Would you expel anyone from campus who viewed the site? Seems like an impossible task.

The only remedy I can think of would be for someone libeled by this site to sue.

Does no one else feel it’s short-sighted to start banning “offensive” content from campus? Someday it may be your ox being gored.

By: baraqiel

baraqiel — Mon, 17 May 2010 17:11:24 +0000

@charlemagneinsweats – “it’s more disturbing that people are comfortable with college adminstrators picking and choosing what is acceptable and what is not.”

Really? The administrators have a responsibility to make the college environment one that is conducive to learning, and for that to happen, students need to be able to feel safe on campus. Administrators need to wise up to the fact that the internet is now part of the college landscape and internet harassment of students by other students is something they should be paying attention to and disciplining if necessary.

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Mon, 17 May 2010 17:05:11 +0000

@charlemagne: I don’t agree. The college admins are the ones who are responsible for running the place. They’r ethe ones who get sued if something goes wrong, so they should have the power to protect themselves and do what they believe is best for the institution. Students are consumers, not owners. If they don’t like what the college is selling, they’re free to take their money elsewhere.

State-owned colleges are a different story; I was talking about private ones. I don’t think that taking federal money for, say, research changes the situation any. If you have to answer to the government for the way you run your institution, then I agree. Otherwise, no.

By: charlemagneinsweats

charlemagneinsweats — Mon, 17 May 2010 16:53:42 +0000

I agree the stuff on these sites are garbage, but it’s more disturbing that people are comfortable with college adminstrators picking and choosing what is acceptable and what is not.

And how “private” is a college that accepts federal and state funding? At some point it would seem that public schools, because of their reliance on federal funds, become state actors subject to the First Amendment.

By: PhDork

PhDork — Mon, 17 May 2010 16:51:58 +0000

MM: I give the “No, That’s Not Censorship” speech at least once a semester. I don’t have a mathematical formula worked out, but I know there’s an inverse relationship between how privileged someone is and how likely they are to complain about their speech being “repressed.”

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Mon, 17 May 2010 16:34:22 +0000

Oh, and there’s another thing. Censorship is when the government prevents individuals or entities from exercising their First Amendment rights. It’s not when a private organization like a college declines to host a site on its servers. It’s not when your church or synagogue refuses to invite a speaker just because you want to hear that person. It’s not when your local movie theater refuses to screen a film the owners consider obscene. Not getting your own way does not equal censorship.

By: mischiefmanager

mischiefmanager — Mon, 17 May 2010 16:27:17 +0000

It’s like the net is a direct line to people’s ids. The uglliest, cruelest, most hateful stuff gets spewed onto it-and the repercussions are minimal at best.

Where are the parents who are supposed to be teaching these kids what decent behavior is? Where are the parents who are supervising their kids’ use of the internet? The word “no” is just not that hard to say, people. Get a spine and use it.