Much of what has been mentioned in this article seems to me to be simply students trying to shock society. Youth will always do so and it is a part of maturing into reasonable people. All children do much the same in their own ways.

They test the boundaries, push the limits and find where they will be burnt. Most learn from that, some don't.

Censoring such material can only focus more attention on it and encourage more to do the same. Let it be published and ignored as who is going to actually follow such advice(s)? After all any of what has been mentioned is freely available on the internet, in books, in movies, on TV and word of mouth.

Far better to allow publication than force people underground and think they are doing something constructive. Most would see such an item and simply skip reading it as it is simply juvenile rebellion, nothing more.

Unfortunately we seem to have a government at the moment that fears the written word if they haven't initiated it or agree fully with it. There is the real concern, not in the publishing of childish reports.

We all surely know that censorship is counter productive and also that people mature and learn resonsibility with that. Those that don't will find themselves infringing a variety of laws and suffer legally for their words and actions as they will not adapt to the needs of a community.

Many of the controversial articles are so fatuous that it's hard to expect anyone to take them seriously. Surely they were written tongue in cheek.

I find this disturbing:
'"For students at the private Notre Dame University, the university’s Catholic hierarchy managed a good showing of its religious glorification by tabooing topics from “abortion, contraception and gay unions,” says Quasimodo editor Chris Bailey. “Censorship has been extended to include most sexual references, profane language and even criticism of the university."'
Perhaps this is a typical message from some religious authorities, "Don't question, don't even think, just believe what you are told and obey". A great way to educate students, isn't it?

In regard to "obscenity", who decides. Apparently a woman in a bikini is obscene by some standards, perhaps a woman just showing her face.

When it comes to public disobedience, apparently in the opinion of some that's OK only if they personally approve of the person being "disobedient" and/or their cause. Just for example, lets assume that Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Ghandi, Emmeline Pankhurst and Jesus Christ were good guys with just causes. But that wasn't the opinion of the power brokers of their times, otherwise they wouldn't have needed to protest, would they?

I suggest that anything which can be openly discussed in the general media should, at the very least, be acceptable in any student publication.

Part of being a student is the opportunity to question, theorise and challenge. They'll never get another chance once sucked into corporate culture.

Whether student publications are right, wrong or indifferent - they should never be censored and should absolutely be encouraged.

Fitting in with the status quo will soon stifle the life and creativity out of students.

Let students breathe while they still can.

"Part of being a student is the opportunity to question, theorise and challenge."
"Fitting in with the status quo will soon stifle the life and creativity out of students."

Scout, you've got to be kidding! Left wing dogma stuffed down the throats of humanities students tends to stifle life and creativity as well. If you really want to challenge the status quo at an Australian Uni just jump up and say that you love good 'ole John McChimpybumboy Boatsinker DetentionHitler HoWARd. Go on - I dare you!

Bozzie - I loved Uni, I loved the challenge, the humour and the fact that it broadened my outlook like nothing else I had experienced. BTW I returned to Uni as a mature age student.

I don't recall having either left or right wing politics "stuffed down my throat". Landscape Architecture was about construction not politics.

I do recall the joy of being listened to as well as inspired - something that never happens in the workplace.

I'm not sure about the point of your post at all. Do you mean that students should be curtailed and censored? If so, why? How will denial of freedom of expression develop and educate young people?

Or did you think you would seize the opportunity to be merely dismissive of another's POV? Perhaps you were stifled at school. If so, I recommend returning to Uni and broadening your horizons.

Cheers

I think I was referring to the humanities subjects Scout. Architectural landscaping being an unlikely environment for revolution.

My point was to articulate the view that the very stifling of dissent that you so object to is entrenched in the humanities departments of many Australian universities. Many students with more conservative viewpoints have learned to keep their mouths well and truly shut for fear of the consequences of upsetting the correct view. I agree that every viewpoint should should be voiced, debated, and criticised. This is not happening in universities in the very departments where it is imperitive that it does! That is my point.

As a landscape architect it is a shame you can't find any inspiration in your workplace. Remind me not to use you to design my new pool and entertaining area! I'm only joking of course Scout, but if you believe that university as opposed to the real world is the place for inspiration then I think you're in a bit of trouble.