This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/27/pupils-stand-for-free-speech-punk-catherine-zeta-jones
The article has changed 9 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 5 | Version 6 |
|---|---|
| Pupils’ stand for free speech is a lesson to us all Pupils’ stand for free speech is a lesson to us all | |
| (25 days later) | |
| Pupils at the Simon Langton grammar school for boys in Canterbury have written an open letter, complaining about the decision to ban former pupil, Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos, from giving a talk at the school, owing to his “reputational issues”. | Pupils at the Simon Langton grammar school for boys in Canterbury have written an open letter, complaining about the decision to ban former pupil, Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos, from giving a talk at the school, owing to his “reputational issues”. |
| Yiannopoulos, who was banned after pressure from the Department for Education, clearly fancies himself to be quite the shock-jock, with his racist and sexist views (“America has a Muslim problem”; feminism is “like cancer”). Proper little charmer, isn’t he? However, the Canterbury pupils say they don’t need to be protected from “indoctrination” and have been denied the right to “interrogate rhetoric”. They said that silencing Yiannopoulos vindicated him, “reinforcing his accusation that our society is against free speech”. Bravo. Give those pupils a merit mark. | Yiannopoulos, who was banned after pressure from the Department for Education, clearly fancies himself to be quite the shock-jock, with his racist and sexist views (“America has a Muslim problem”; feminism is “like cancer”). Proper little charmer, isn’t he? However, the Canterbury pupils say they don’t need to be protected from “indoctrination” and have been denied the right to “interrogate rhetoric”. They said that silencing Yiannopoulos vindicated him, “reinforcing his accusation that our society is against free speech”. Bravo. Give those pupils a merit mark. |
| What a lesson for all those organisations and groups that have called for speakers to be banned, sometimes on the most spurious grounds, in the eternal quest for the “safe space”. | What a lesson for all those organisations and groups that have called for speakers to be banned, sometimes on the most spurious grounds, in the eternal quest for the “safe space”. |
| But couldn’t we ban Yiannopoulos – just a little bit? After all, does anyone really benefit from standing downwind of such pathetic attention-seeking? | But couldn’t we ban Yiannopoulos – just a little bit? After all, does anyone really benefit from standing downwind of such pathetic attention-seeking? |
| However, Yiannopoulos shouldn’t be banned, not just because he enjoys it too much, or even because it’s wrong, but mainly because it’s dangerous. | However, Yiannopoulos shouldn’t be banned, not just because he enjoys it too much, or even because it’s wrong, but mainly because it’s dangerous. |
| It is also nonsensical. Have recent times taught us nothing? There are no safe spaces, it was all a mirage. Or, if you like, a mirage wrapped in a delusion inside an echo chamber. While the anguished central casting liberal “we should have listened to people more” rhetoric is becoming somewhat overplayed, there’s no doubt that, if 2016 has been anything, it’s been the year of “you can run but you can’t hide”. A year that’s demonstrated that however smart, decent and switched-on you think you and your mates are, there’s a big, bad, increasingly powerful counter-reality out there that vehemently disagrees, and the very last thing that people should do is ignore it. | It is also nonsensical. Have recent times taught us nothing? There are no safe spaces, it was all a mirage. Or, if you like, a mirage wrapped in a delusion inside an echo chamber. While the anguished central casting liberal “we should have listened to people more” rhetoric is becoming somewhat overplayed, there’s no doubt that, if 2016 has been anything, it’s been the year of “you can run but you can’t hide”. A year that’s demonstrated that however smart, decent and switched-on you think you and your mates are, there’s a big, bad, increasingly powerful counter-reality out there that vehemently disagrees, and the very last thing that people should do is ignore it. |
| Of course, it’s jarring sometimes. Andrew Marr interviewing Marine Le Pen sent me screaming back into the shower for a good scrub. Then there’s Nigel Farage… everywhere. Let’s be clear: I’m not in the market for normalising certain beliefs, giving prejudice a comfy perch in the national and international conversation or making media darlings or “amusing” circus turns out of the likes of Farage. | Of course, it’s jarring sometimes. Andrew Marr interviewing Marine Le Pen sent me screaming back into the shower for a good scrub. Then there’s Nigel Farage… everywhere. Let’s be clear: I’m not in the market for normalising certain beliefs, giving prejudice a comfy perch in the national and international conversation or making media darlings or “amusing” circus turns out of the likes of Farage. |
| While it’s possible to be angered by some no-platforms, and more instinctively sympatico with others, the fact remains that it’s all unworkable. However odious people’s views are, they must be smoked out, challenged, ridiculed, exposed, rather than allowed to fester in the shadows and in the darkest, smelliest pockets of the internet, all the time preening as martyrs. | While it’s possible to be angered by some no-platforms, and more instinctively sympatico with others, the fact remains that it’s all unworkable. However odious people’s views are, they must be smoked out, challenged, ridiculed, exposed, rather than allowed to fester in the shadows and in the darkest, smelliest pockets of the internet, all the time preening as martyrs. |
| Above all, it is time to grasp, just as the Canterbury pupils did, that there’s no such thing as “free-ish speech”. Free speech is either truly free, for everybody, or it is the worthless joke that democracy’s enemies want it to be. Nor are there any “safe spaces” – it was all just a lovely dream. | Above all, it is time to grasp, just as the Canterbury pupils did, that there’s no such thing as “free-ish speech”. Free speech is either truly free, for everybody, or it is the worthless joke that democracy’s enemies want it to be. Nor are there any “safe spaces” – it was all just a lovely dream. |
| What was called “safe” was just intellectual suffocation, with everyone pleading and cajoling: “Come on world, play nice!” Increasingly, what’s more dangerous than that? | What was called “safe” was just intellectual suffocation, with everyone pleading and cajoling: “Come on world, play nice!” Increasingly, what’s more dangerous than that? |
| Punk a brand? Corré is flaming mad | Punk a brand? Corré is flaming mad |
| When Joe Corré, co-founder of lingerie label Agent Provocateur, announced his plans (with mother/ designer Vivienne Westwood’s blessing) to ceremonially burn £5m of rare punk memorabilia inherited from his late father, former Sex Pistols manager, Malcolm McLaren, this ex-music hack’s first thought (without swearing) was: “I’ll have it.” There then followed more swearing. | When Joe Corré, co-founder of lingerie label Agent Provocateur, announced his plans (with mother/ designer Vivienne Westwood’s blessing) to ceremonially burn £5m of rare punk memorabilia inherited from his late father, former Sex Pistols manager, Malcolm McLaren, this ex-music hack’s first thought (without swearing) was: “I’ll have it.” There then followed more swearing. |
| I understood Corré’s rationale. Following the Punk London 40th anniversary event, he considered that the establishment had “privatised, packaged and castrated” punk and it was time to stop “conning a younger generation”. Corré added that punk has become a “McDonald’s brand”, which is where he lost me. | I understood Corré’s rationale. Following the Punk London 40th anniversary event, he considered that the establishment had “privatised, packaged and castrated” punk and it was time to stop “conning a younger generation”. Corré added that punk has become a “McDonald’s brand”, which is where he lost me. |
| Of course, Corré was always entitled to do what he wanted with his possessions. However, punk was never a brand or even simply a musical genre – it was primarily an attitude and, however much the corporate world tried to own it, it never quite managed to do so. Moreover, while the punk period was documented, it was a far cry from our selfie-obsessed, over-documented times and such items (rare recordings and merchandise) were priceless in ways that couldn’t be measured in mere cash value. | Of course, Corré was always entitled to do what he wanted with his possessions. However, punk was never a brand or even simply a musical genre – it was primarily an attitude and, however much the corporate world tried to own it, it never quite managed to do so. Moreover, while the punk period was documented, it was a far cry from our selfie-obsessed, over-documented times and such items (rare recordings and merchandise) were priceless in ways that couldn’t be measured in mere cash value. |
| If the goal was to make a bold statement, Corré could have planned to, say, symbolically burn the most and least valuable items, sold the rest and given the money to charity. | If the goal was to make a bold statement, Corré could have planned to, say, symbolically burn the most and least valuable items, sold the rest and given the money to charity. |
| Even better, he could have used the money to start a trust to enable struggling, skint artists (of whom there are many). By contrast, this felt less about artistic defiance, in the style of the group KLF’s burning of £1m in 1994 (a lot of money, but still just money), and more of a wasted opportunity, not to mention an act of heartbreaking cultural vandalism. | Even better, he could have used the money to start a trust to enable struggling, skint artists (of whom there are many). By contrast, this felt less about artistic defiance, in the style of the group KLF’s burning of £1m in 1994 (a lot of money, but still just money), and more of a wasted opportunity, not to mention an act of heartbreaking cultural vandalism. |
| Oh Catherine Zeta-Jones, learn to turn the other cheek… | Oh Catherine Zeta-Jones, learn to turn the other cheek… |
| Catherine Zeta-Jones has reacted angrily to paparazzi beach shots of herself and her husband, Michael Douglas, looking less than lithe. Fair enough. Few of us would enjoy the world gazing upon unflattering photographs of ourselves in beach gear and I say that as someone for whom a top-to-toe kaftan would be the height of daring. However, Zeta-Jones’s riposte was to get Douglas to take better, slinkier photographs of her in her bikini, including a lovely and, dare I say, provocative photo of her derriere. | Catherine Zeta-Jones has reacted angrily to paparazzi beach shots of herself and her husband, Michael Douglas, looking less than lithe. Fair enough. Few of us would enjoy the world gazing upon unflattering photographs of ourselves in beach gear and I say that as someone for whom a top-to-toe kaftan would be the height of daring. However, Zeta-Jones’s riposte was to get Douglas to take better, slinkier photographs of her in her bikini, including a lovely and, dare I say, provocative photo of her derriere. |
| Zeta-Jones and Douglas famously had “dealings” (tense and legal) with the media over invasion of privacy before and few people would wish to deny them the right to have fun on the beach without pap interference. However, their photographic response makes the issue more muddled. The suggestion is that their displeasure was more a matter of aesthetics than privacy and that they would have been fine if the snatched images had been more flattering. | Zeta-Jones and Douglas famously had “dealings” (tense and legal) with the media over invasion of privacy before and few people would wish to deny them the right to have fun on the beach without pap interference. However, their photographic response makes the issue more muddled. The suggestion is that their displeasure was more a matter of aesthetics than privacy and that they would have been fine if the snatched images had been more flattering. |
| Call me a stickler, but I’m not sure an invasion-of-privacy tantrum should involve more bikini photos, showing the subject’s arse off to superb advantage. The post Leveson confusion continues… | Call me a stickler, but I’m not sure an invasion-of-privacy tantrum should involve more bikini photos, showing the subject’s arse off to superb advantage. The post Leveson confusion continues… |