The Sun’s tasteless front page representation of murdered model, Reeva Steenkamp, has sparked a call for change amongst many of the University’s students. Steenkamp, who was pictured next to the words “3 shots, screams, silence, 3 more shots” was brutally killed. However, in their disrespectful account of the events The Sun pictured Reeva in a bikini and chose to not even mention her name. Naturally, of course, this brash headline received all the attention that it set out to and as such, has instigated the York Uni SU: Stop Profiting from Prejudice Publications campaign.
The campaign has the aim of stopping YUSU from selling prejudice material and is encouraging students to engage in a mass ideas submission on the 1st of March with the purpose of proposing a referendum of what publications should and should not be sold in Your Shop. Whilst in theory this may seem like a progressive and empowering movement, it does not come without problems. The event itself seems to be decidedly confused in what it is hoping to achieve, with no clear outlines of what should be banned from sale in Your Shop – some members believing it is just The Sun that is going to be banned and others hoping that the movement will include the removal of soft porn magazines such as FHM and Nuts. But either way, is it really fair for one group of people to dictate what everyone else can buy? Where should the line be drawn? And surely, by the very nature of this argument and the aspirations of the event doesn’t it necessarily become a battle of freedom of speech?
Shockingly, the facebook group used to outline the campaign’s intentions has been noted to be removing any negative feedback or criticism that it is receiving. This places the movement in an untouchable position and ironically denies freedom of speech. One student comments: “The assumption that anyone has the moral superiority to decide what is wrong and what is right is simply wrong”. In this case, the argument of ‘if you don’t like it then you don’t have to buy it’ is unavoidable. Although the campaign has put forward the idea of a Your Shop official (meaning that what is sold will be decided with regards to voting and as such will be the decision of the masses) this runs on the notion that one person’s idea of right and good is the same as another and that everyone wants to read the same thing. This then has the potential to marginalise certain groups of individuals, for example one student argues: “Do you think banning gay magazines would be good if a majority voted for this?”
As a result we need to consider where to draw the line for what is banned from sale in Your Shop. The Sun, although sensationalist, is not the only paper to use offensive articles or images. Although the recent case of Reeva Steenkamp is particularly objectionable, it would be naive to suggest that no other paper has put publicity before morality. Of course, this doesn’t make it right and I am by no means advocating bigotry in the press; but as newspapers will continue to be controversial to battle the popularity decline of print culture and sell through shock, it is important to remember that just because one shop may stop selling such media it will nevertheless continue to be printed. Of course this works both ways and you could argue that if people were so desperate to read such newspapers they could easily walk to another shop to buy it. However, if this is truly a battle against prejudice in the media making unjust profit, then surely this is an issue that should be taken directly to the paper itself.
A similar referendum took place at the University in 2011, with the proposal of having ‘lads mags’ covered in Your Shop. However, when put to the vote the motion was defeated. Is this to say that we have become so numb to the open display of naked female bodies that it is no longer classed as sexist and objectifying? If this is the case then the distinction between anti-sexist/offensive and anti-porn ideals need to be made clear in the campaign, as they have come to identify themselves as two different things (whilst one is undisputedly wrong the other is based on personal opinion).This leads to the concerns expressed by one commenter on the page, that the campaign is turning into “a high vs low culture debate”; meaning that until the lines are less blurred on what the movement is actually fighting for the campaign remains a battle about personal preference and not justice.
A very good article. However, I think that sexism is clearly wrong and whether porn is wrong depends very much on the context. For example, what would be wrong with having gay porn and/or feminist porn in Your Shop?
Josephene Harmon, the thread mysteriously got deleted but here is my reply to you anyway (in a place where it is harder for the censorious campaign event creators to delete):
“Will, anti-misogyny is not a “moral panic” any more than anti-racism”.
I agree.
“I’ve specifically said that I am not anti-nudity, anti-porn — all of the things you bring up to distort the real focus on political anti-feminism”.
You may not be anti-nudity but you have persistently evaded my question of why the campaign is focusing on banning The Sun whilst not trying to ban The Daily Mail which has at least as much sexism and racism.
“You constantly drag focus to peripheral issues”.
If The Sun is not a “peripheral issue” as claimed by the campaign then surely The Daily Mail is not a “peripheral issue” either.
Sexual oppression and LGBTQ issues are not “peripheral” whether you assert they are or not. This is especially true because the leader of the campaign is Helena who is an LGBTQ representative and therefore has a duty to make sure LCBTQ people are represented and their concerns are not branded peripheral. LGBT are an embattled small numerical minority who are therefore less able to defend themselves under majority voting. Queer people number many more than LGBT people and so it seems odd to assume their concerns should be “peripheral”. In terms of numbers to assume the concerns of queer people should be considered “peripheral” is akin to assuming the concerns of women should be considered peripheral.
“This cannot be traced to a single article: The Sun has been doing this for years”.
I agree that The Sun has been sexist for years.
“Bringing up an incidental article at The Guardian is badly missing the point”.
It does not miss the point because my criticism is of the politics and sloppiness of the campaign. The picture chosen for the campaign is no accident but is used to shock. The campaign implies that the picture chosen for the campaign is representative of the misogyny of The Sun. However, instead of being typical the picture is an extreme example of page 3. The picture is a sexual one of a woman that has recently died. The vast majority of issues of The Sun do not use a sexual image of a woman that has recently died. This is the same for The Guardian. The Guardian used a sexual picture of a woman who had recently died but this was an exception as it is an exception for The Sun. Of course I think that given the context of the page three girls (read the speech bubbles) page 3 is sexist. Nonetheless, this is not the same kind of shocking sexism as using a sexual image of a woman who has recently died. I think the campaign would not be so much of a moral panic if the image used and implied to be typical for The Sun was not such an extreme and unrepresentative example.
“I can see there’s no getting through to you. You’re not being liberal: you’re just being pathetic”
Saying nasty things such as that are not likely to convince me you are right. Although, I doubt how much you were really trying to get through to me given your previous insults of accusing me of being like Peter Hitchens and trolling. Making such ridiculous straw man arguments are not particularly convincing. I’m sorry I don’t think concerns about banning whatever a majority is offended by is as “peripheral” as you seem to! At least a good liberal would not go about deleting so many threads as are constantly getting deleted on the campaign group which simultaneously claims to foster debate and representation of students’ views!