Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Facebook Pages Cause Free Speech Controversy



A.S. Senate Bill Ignites Debate on Censorship Over ‘UCSB Confessions’ and ‘UCSB Hookups’

 

The national student rights organization FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, has reported on an Associated Students Senate bill calling for UCSB administration to moderate — and potentially shut down — the two popular and sometimes controversial Facebook pages UCSB Confessions and UCSB Hook-Ups.

The pages, which have received a combination of roughly 15,000 likes, captured the attention of A.S. Senate last week when On-Campus Senator Navkiran Kaur authored a bill requesting the student government body to “condemn” the sites. However, the bill not only shames the pages’ content — particularly its inclusion of “hate speech, sexism and racism”— but also asks university administrators to report the pages and “ask that they be taken down immediately.” Tonight, College Republicans and other concerned students will challenge the bill during the A.S. Senate’s public forum.

Since its unveiling, the bill has garnered a considerable amount of criticism from campus community members, with some students claiming it acts as a means of censorship by violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

Referring to the bill as a form of “morally wrong” censorship, the FIRE article advises UCSB administration and the A.S. Senate to “politely decline” the proposal to implement the bill.

In proposing the bill, Kaur — a second-year global studies major and feminist studies minor — said the Facebook pages contain offensive material and UCSB Hook-Ups includes several accounts of sexual assault. Such negative material has the potential to “misrepresent” the UCSB campus, according to Kaur, who said campus administration has a right to control how the ‘UCSB’ name is used.

However, FIRE Senior Vice President Robert Shibley said administration holds no such rights, and shutting the pages down would be considered a case of censorship.

Associate Dean of Student Life Katya Armistead echoed Shibley’s assertion and said moderators of the Facebook pages can use the UCSB name as long as they are not officially representing a campus department or entity. Armistead said although she and other faculty have received several complaints regarding the pages and are currently working with affected students, they cannot and will not actively seek to shut down or, in any way, censor the pages.

“We’re not looking to do anything necessarily official,” Armistead said. “We can’t demand that it be taken down. It’s happening on all schools, all campuses. So we recognize that that’s not something within our ability.”

Armistead said, students offended by their content have the right to express their disapproval — even if such condemnation does not include the administration’s legal involvement.

According to Shibley, the UCSB community as a whole should become “better educated” in dealing with issues of free speech, as the A.S. bill constitutes a clear violation of basic freedoms.

“The way to fight speech is with more speech,” Shibley said. “Rather than attempting to silence the people you disagree with, you should fight back with more speech in the marketplace of ideas. Calling for censorship is never the right solution.”

Kaur said she and other students tried challenging the page moderators but were unsuccessful in removing negative material. She said the inclusion of a section called ‘Slut of the Week’ in the UCSB Hook-Ups page introduced an instance “where the line had to be drawn.”

“I did reach out to Hook-Ups and I did talk to them about it. However, they refused to work with me,” Kaur said. “Other students have been reporting things. Students have been trying to report things and it just comes to a point where this is affecting our students and multiple students have felt triggered. They have felt unsafe by things that were posted.”

But the postings, which include narrations of casual sexual encounters as well as the use of drugs and alcohol, are less to blame than common cultural values existent on campus, according to Christopher Babadjanian, president of College Republicans and fourth-year political science major. In fact, Babadjanian said limiting the exposure of these pages may only stifle productive dialogue by ignoring the controversial issues they sometimes present.

“This is not a way to make the worst part of UCSB a lot better,” Babadjanian said. “This is just a way of ignoring the problem and removing it away from the public eye and I don’t think removing it away from the public is a way to eliminate the problem.”

College Republicans contacted FIRE after learning of the A.S. bill condemning UCSB Confessions and UCSB Hook-Ups last week. College Republicans Executive Director Sara Callahan, fourth-year communication and film & media studies major, said UCSB has had past instances of being “selective” in allowing free and open speech. Callahan said the fact that UCSB Confessions and UCSB Hook-Ups present topics found disturbing or offensive to some students presents no viable argument for censorship.

“The point of the First Amendment is to protect speech that is unpopular, or may be not as nice and glossy and glamorized. This exactly the case when the First Amendment should be enforced,” Callahan said.

Co-chair of Take Back the Night Alex Moore, a third-year political science major, said his organization endorsed the bill because the UCSB Hook-Ups page presents several narrations of sexual assault incidents, which can be traumatic for survivors of this abuse.

“We have to also consider the rights of the survivors, and of people who have been affected by date rape and in the case of UCSB Hook-Ups, just blatant rape,” Moore said. “They have a right to their privacy, they have a right to not watch those things bounce around the internet and we have a right to safety and security on this campus.”

For Moore, the bill acts more as a statement against the potentially harmful and violent behavior of some students. While acknowledging the need for First Amendment protection, Moore said he finds it necessary to still recognize the rights of students most affected by page, particularly victims of sexual assault.

“No one deserves to be raped in the first place and then really, no one deserves to be raped and then have their rape story told to their entire university,” Moore said. “We run into this wall where we have these two competing groups of rights and it is my duty, where I currently work, to represent one side of that.”

 

 

Photo by Mark Broucher / Daily Nexus
A version of this article appeared on page 1 of February 27th, 2013′s print edition of the Nexus.
Print Friendly

One Response to Facebook Pages Cause Free Speech Controversy

  1. Jonathan Abboud Reply

    February 27, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    Since the completion of my term on AS Senate I haven’t publicly come out for/against any controversial issues, but this one seemed important to do so.

    I think a lot of this controversy stems from a misunderstanding of what the Senate is and how far reaching its power lies.

    The bill referred to in this article was a “position paper” by the Senate. The position paper basically said that the Senate felt that the pages were not conducive to a positive university climate. Senate has the right to make this claim. It is the elected representation of all 18,000 students. Whether or not that is the majority opinion of the students (I don’t know what the majority opinion is), the Senate was elected to make such decisions. If students disagree and are in favor the Hook-Up and Confessions pages they can make that concern known to the Senate and the Senate will take them into account when voting.

    I applaud the students that are coming in today to voice their concern about the bill, it is their right to speak during public forum to the Senate.

    So case in point: The Senate is within its power to take a position, as the representative of the students, on this bill. I’m not saying what the Senate did is right or wrong, but simply “legal.”

    Next up is the part about the Senate encouraging the administration to look into legal action about the pages and to take them down.

    Now, it is again perfectly within the parameters of the Senate to make requests of the administration. Looking into legal action is not the same as taking legal action; i.e. the Senate didn’t hire a lawyer to pursue litigation.

    The administration heard the Senate’s request and as stated by Katya Armistead they determined there is no case. So nothing will happen now.

    So the claims of censorship, in my opinion, are not valid. However, the claims that the Senate should not oppose the Facebook pages are valid claims.

    Finally, I personally am very against the material posted on UCSB Hook-Ups (not so much Confessions, but I’m sure there are bad apples there). I thought it started out cool and degraded as time went on. My personal view is that the moderator should screen some of the posts and keep them light hearted. My thoughts can be found here on my facebook status (which garnered a large amount of support): https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.abboud/posts/10151516589146015

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>