Last week the executive committee of the Students Union took the action of gagging an article. It is a sad day for The Beaver and for the students of LSE in general, when its own Sabbatical officers – those elected democratically by the student body – start censoring its own version of the free press. Add to that the thinly-veiled threats at The Beaver and it paints a sorry picture of those elected in good faith by the students of LSE.
Our Sabbatical officers deemed the article in question “improper”, supposedly because it would have violated a seemingly confidential agreement made between the Union and somebody, somewhere, sometime ago. Surely it is in the public interest to know what agreements the Union is signing, especially if they limit freedom of speech on the LSE campus.
The Beaver was able to contact Dr. Andrew Scott, an expert in media law. He clarified for us in his letter to the editor everything we needed to know; that there was no basis for censoring the article in question due to “commercial activities”. This begs the question, could the Sabbatical officers not have gone to Dr. Scott in the first instance and asked him about the legal implications of said story? Could they have not done the same last year when they failed to spot libelous claims? It beggars belief that, though we are one of the top institutions in the world for Law, in the eyes of the Sabbs, infringing on the liberty of The Beaver is an easier way of resolving the issue, rather than consulting with a readily available authority on the subject. Was the promoter even contacted to ask their viewpoint on the matter at hand? You cannot help but feel that this is all rather murky and suspicious given that these questions need to be asked.
Eventually it would seem that Fisher backed down and “permitted” the article to be published; however, with many strings attached. Does this mean that he backtracked on believing that the article was libellous? Putting an advertisement into the paper does not change whether the article was defamatory or not. Finally, the original story was gagged once more after The Beaver refused to curtail its ability to cover news in an impartial manner.
The Beaver has the responsibility as part of the National Union of Journalists’ code of conduct, to “defend the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed”. I am sure the student body are interested in what the Union is doing behind the scenes. In fact, in trying to make The Beaver accept the story with strings attached they are overlooking their own Codes of Practice that awards The Beaver “full editorial and managerial independence.”
When defending the gag, Fisher claimed The Beaver should be focusing on other issues. But if we cannot hold the Union responsible for its decisions then there will be no incentive for the SU to provide quality student events. The track record speaks for itself: we have lost two events; none have replaced them. The censored article was about a failure of an event as well. Clearly, it is a recurring theme. Some events in question have been poorly marketed and have had very poor attendance – the Orientation Week Crush excepted, which had problems on the opposite end of the scale. These are definitely issues that many LSE students feel strongly about.
It would appear that all the Sabbs are interested in is their profile, and that they wish to deflect away as much criticism from themselves as possible. Mr Low’s comments in The Beaver last week are not going to stop people from asking the important questions that need to be asked. The SU prides itself on keeping debate on the cards, particularly with regards to the UGM, so now must be the time for more transparency in the actions of its Sabbatical officers. Or would they prefer if debate was off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush.
No related posts.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 at 11:49 and is filed under Comment.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Gagging order
by Leon Fellas on 27 Oct 2009 in Comment
Last week the executive committee of the Students Union took the action of gagging an article. It is a sad day for The Beaver and for the students of LSE in general, when its own Sabbatical officers – those elected democratically by the student body – start censoring its own version of the free press. Add to that the thinly-veiled threats at The Beaver and it paints a sorry picture of those elected in good faith by the students of LSE.
Our Sabbatical officers deemed the article in question “improper”, supposedly because it would have violated a seemingly confidential agreement made between the Union and somebody, somewhere, sometime ago. Surely it is in the public interest to know what agreements the Union is signing, especially if they limit freedom of speech on the LSE campus.
The Beaver was able to contact Dr. Andrew Scott, an expert in media law. He clarified for us in his letter to the editor everything we needed to know; that there was no basis for censoring the article in question due to “commercial activities”. This begs the question, could the Sabbatical officers not have gone to Dr. Scott in the first instance and asked him about the legal implications of said story? Could they have not done the same last year when they failed to spot libelous claims? It beggars belief that, though we are one of the top institutions in the world for Law, in the eyes of the Sabbs, infringing on the liberty of The Beaver is an easier way of resolving the issue, rather than consulting with a readily available authority on the subject. Was the promoter even contacted to ask their viewpoint on the matter at hand? You cannot help but feel that this is all rather murky and suspicious given that these questions need to be asked.
Eventually it would seem that Fisher backed down and “permitted” the article to be published; however, with many strings attached. Does this mean that he backtracked on believing that the article was libellous? Putting an advertisement into the paper does not change whether the article was defamatory or not. Finally, the original story was gagged once more after The Beaver refused to curtail its ability to cover news in an impartial manner.
The Beaver has the responsibility as part of the National Union of Journalists’ code of conduct, to “defend the right of freedom of expression and the right of the public to be informed”. I am sure the student body are interested in what the Union is doing behind the scenes. In fact, in trying to make The Beaver accept the story with strings attached they are overlooking their own Codes of Practice that awards The Beaver “full editorial and managerial independence.”
When defending the gag, Fisher claimed The Beaver should be focusing on other issues. But if we cannot hold the Union responsible for its decisions then there will be no incentive for the SU to provide quality student events. The track record speaks for itself: we have lost two events; none have replaced them. The censored article was about a failure of an event as well. Clearly, it is a recurring theme. Some events in question have been poorly marketed and have had very poor attendance – the Orientation Week Crush excepted, which had problems on the opposite end of the scale. These are definitely issues that many LSE students feel strongly about.
It would appear that all the Sabbs are interested in is their profile, and that they wish to deflect away as much criticism from themselves as possible. Mr Low’s comments in The Beaver last week are not going to stop people from asking the important questions that need to be asked. The SU prides itself on keeping debate on the cards, particularly with regards to the UGM, so now must be the time for more transparency in the actions of its Sabbatical officers. Or would they prefer if debate was off the record, on the QT, and very hush-hush.
No related posts.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 27th, 2009 at 11:49 and is filed under Comment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.