3 Reasons Universities Need to Stop Banning Free Speech

President of Freedom Society and online columnist Liam Taylor provdies three reasons why universities need to stop trying to ban free speech.

Censorship. The friend of autocrats and defender of bad ideas across the world and throughout history. Our country has had a long and proud history as a champion of the principal of free speech, which begs the question of why this most favourite tool of corrupt 3^rd world dictators has suddenly become a new fad amongst universities here on our shores. Universities UK, the umbrella body that represents vice-chancellors (and the same ridiculous outfit that also recently rubber-stamped gender segregation), has declared that free speech should no longer be an absolute  but must be restricted,  as speakers may express ‘contentious’ or even ‘offensive’ views. Now the perceptive among you may notice that if free speech is to exist, by definition it can only do so without these restrictions. To ‘balance’ free speech with restrictions about not causing offence is in effect to abolish one of the foundations of our society. Clearly there are many crazy groups out there across the political spectrum with lots of crazy ideas, but here are a few reasons why even they deserve to have their views heard.

1)  It’s their job

Universities of all places should be bastions of free speech. If there is one place where you should be free to explore, debate and discuss ideas, without fear of being coerced or controlled, then it should be at a university. That is the whole point of them after all. But all too often this is not the case. Either universities take it upon themselves to ban speakers or even harass groups they consider ‘offensive’, or particularly intolerant students shout down or even threaten speakers they failed to get banned, simply because they disagree with their point of view. Luckily here at Exeter we’ve been free of this kind of nonsense, with student groups being given the freedom to invite who they want and being relatively tolerant of one another. Whenever there have been cack-handed attempts at censorship and proposals to ban national newspapers, our fellow students have had the good sense to reject them. However more and more Exeter seems to be the exception rather than the rule when it comes to free speech. And that is particularly worrying as…

Photo Credit: yoshiffles via Compfight cc

2) It’s the only defence against bad ideas

It’s an old saying that you cannot kill an idea; they will live on long after the person who thought of it has been forgotten by history. However the only way to defeat a bad idea is with a better one. You cannot defeat ideas you disagree with by burying them in the dark. It is only in the light of day and the oxygen of publicity that we will be able to tell the good ideas, which will flourish, from the bad which will decay. In fact, clumsy attempts at censorship will only reinforce them. Just like the way the BNP imploded after being exposed on Question Time, the only way to prevent bad ideas taking root is to debate them openly and publicly.

Similarly it’s the only way to get rid of a bad consensus. It doesn’t take a lot for a bad idea to become entrenched and become orthodoxy. Which is why it’s important to keep questioning it, even if the new idea isn’t better (and often it won’t be) it is important to keep questioning the orthodoxy in case it’s wrong or we find something better. And for various reasons our political and media elites often get it wrong. In fact the more they agree the more wrong they tend to be. Free speech is the only way to prevent a destructive idea becoming consensus. Don’t forget it wasn’t all that long ago that a terrible idea such as eugenics was a fashionable opinion for intellectual and political elites to hold in ‘respectable’ circles throughout the West. That champion of progressivism, Keynes, was Director of the British Eugenics Society whilst opposition was limited to an ‘extremist’ fringe. Censorship and slander are the last gasp of failed dogmas like these as they cower in their ivory towers from challengers.

3) It’s the only way humanity will progress

Only when ideas can be discussed and debated freely can we ever discover the new ideas that allow for human progress. But that won’t happen if people are unable to express new ideas or challenge old ones without fear of being shouted down or ostracised for it. Which is exactly why those who cling most desperately to failed ideas both old and new are those most likely to try to silence dissenting voices, because they know their ideas will not stand up to the scrutiny of being challenged. How can we expect to progress in an environment where obvious truths cannot be said and very real problems cannot be diagnosed because they challenge the conventional wisdom of the day?

It was Voltaire who said that “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” So perhaps instead of trying to crush ideas we dislike, or that challenge our own, we would do better to heed those words.

Liam Taylor

Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

“Spotted” Facebook page continues despite University intervention

Image credit: Niklas Rahmel

A notorious Facebook page which came under scrutiny from the University earlier this year has continued to publish posts by students, despite concerted efforts by the University to shut it down. The page has attracted over 5,000 likes from students.

The ‘Spotted in the Forum’ page allows students to anonymously comment on other people they have seen in the Forum, considered by many to be the central hub of the University. Recent comments have included one user telling a “studious blonde” that “if you were my coursework I’d be doing you right now all over my desk”.

The page is a remnant of a social media trend from earlier this year, where students from universities across the UK would take to Facebook to anonymously comment on the appearances and actions of other students on campus. Many pages were closed down, including one site in Birmingham which was deleted after a student used the page to confess to committing a serious sexual assault during their time as a student.

A request lodged under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) earlier this year shows the lengths the University went to try to minimise the fallout from these sorts of pages. The request, which asked for all internal email correspondence about the pages, shows that University staff considered disciplinary and legal action in a bid to curb what was described as “dubious student antics” in an email from 15 January.

Internal communications between staff also criticised the Spotted pages, saying that the pages have a “tendency to stereotype women as sexually available”, as well as commenting to the owner of one of the pages that “the management of the University is understandably very sensitive about the reputation of the University”.

The University told one page owner, in a conversation on 15 January 2013, that: “the University is worried that the Spotted page will put people off visiting the Forum if they think their appearance, dress sense, or sexual availability is going to be discussed in front of thousands of people”, as well as telling the page administrator that “there is no room for debate in this matter”.

A third year English student said: “I regularly use the Forum, as do many other students, and it is unsettling to know that I could theoretically be being watched and commented upon as I go about my day to day business. It’s disappointing to see that the University’s earlier efforts to stop the page have clearly failed”.

A Students’ Guild spokesman said: “Whilst these types of pages can start with good intentions they can quickly become offensive and hurtful to some members of the campus community. The Guild will support any student who feels aggrieved by these pages to take the appropriate action should they ask for it”.

When asked about the page’s re-emergence by Exeposé, a University spokesperson said: “We asked for last year’s batch of ‘Spotted’ sites to be taken down because some of the comments made were quite personal, sometimes verging on harassment, and we received a number of complaints. If students feel uncomfortable about any comments that appear on this year’s sites, they should contact the University and we will take appropriate action”.

The administrator of the ‘Spotted in the Forum’ page could not be reached for comment.

Owen Keating, News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Blurred Lines vote a "complete farce"

A Students’ Guild vote has determined that ‘Blurred Lines’ shall be condemned but not banned, despite this specific outcome receiving the lowest number of votes from students.

A total of 752 students voted, a low number compared to the 2,441 votes cast upon whether to ban The Sun from Guild retail outlets in May, representing a 69 per cent decrease in student turnout. These 752 voters represent a mere four per cent of the University population, meaning that approximately only one per cent of students voted initially for the specific course of action that has been taken.

The song has received an outright majority for condemnation, a total of 488 voters, but no action has been taken to remove the song from Guild Outlets, despite the highest number of voters (286) requesting that specific course of action among the three offered.

The voting procedure in place was labelled as a “common sense approach” by the Students’ Guild, and required an outright majority (50 per cent plus one vote) to enact change around the notions of removal and condemnation. Exeposé has been informed that this voting system was agreed upon by the Democracy & Governance Committee in a meeting on 25 September.

The decision was made for three-stranded campaigns on 9 October on by the Democracy & Governance Committee, resulting in the ‘Condemn and Remove’, ‘No Change’ and ‘No Ban and Condemn’ options present in the vote. This was agreed upon by the leaders of the campaigns present at the time, with the hope that the decision would “inform better debate and prevent polarising debates”.

Carlus Hudson, leader of the ‘Condemn and Remove’ campaign, stated “It’s fantastic that Exeter students have voted to condemn the song. That said, I don’t think there’s much to be happy about in terms of voter turnout which sheds light on the degree to which there is apathy on the issue of trivialisation of rape in popular culture and the need for a broader campaign to energise students and raise awareness on this point.”

“Perhaps the turnout, as well as the way in which the voting system was arranged (meaning that the ‘Condemn and Don’t Ban’ campaign which got the least number of votes of the three campaigns was the motion which was ultimately carried), raises the further question of the way in which students can exercise democratic rights within the Guild, and look critically at how the vote has been put together in the past month.”

The ‘No Ban and Condemn’ campaign commented “We’re pleased that a majority of voters didn’t want the song banned and also wanted to condemn its misogynistic lyrics. At the same time, we’re disappointed at our own result, and it’s a real shame that an attempt to give students another option has turned out as a confusing, messy compromise”.

Dan Richards, President of Exeter Labour Students, has previously been critical of the presence of three separate campaigns in the vote. He told Exeposé: “The vote has been a complete farce and the result shows how empty the condemnation will be and how meaningless this whole week has been in terms of tackling the main issue. However, it does show that most students want further action taken to combat sexism on campus on top of the condemnation and we now need to look into what our options are!”

Lauren Swift, a second year English student commented, “It was a poorly designed vote in the sense that two of the campaigns had a mutual interest but also diverging actions. It should have been structured better and perhaps the Guild should have pre-empted a situation in which there was such close contention between the vote’s results”.

Hannah Barton, Students’ Guild President, has stated that “A key purpose of the Students’ Guild is to support students to campaign on the issues close to their heart and it has been fantastic to see the student voice in action, with 488 students voting to condemn the song. Regardless of the outcome, I think the campaign has raised awareness of an ongoing issue and, if students will now think more about the issues ranging from rape culture to everyday sexism and ways to combat this, that is a very positive thing”.

Louis Dore, News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Most votes for Condemn and Remove but 'Blurred Lines' still avoids ban

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

·         Condemn and Remove – 286

·         No Change – 263

·         No Ban and Condemn – 202

‘Blurred Lines’ will not be banned at Exeter despite students voting in favour of the Condemn and Remove option, in this week’s referendum.

38.1 per cent voted for the motion, with No Action winning 35 per cent of the vote. No Ban and Condemn came third, taking 26. 9 per cent, in a vote which had only 752 participants.

It means that the Guild will now condemn and not ban the song, despite that option coming last.

In a break with previous referendums, First Past the Post was not employed to decide the outcome. Even though the option to ban the song won the most votes, it did not win an absolute majority, meaning the ban was not imposed.

However, with the combination of the two ‘condemn’ options winning a huge majority, it has been decided that the song will be condemned.

Robin Thicke’s song has provoked huge controversy on campus and around the country, thanks to an explicit video and seemingly sexist lyrics which appear to refer to rape. The summer hit has already been banned at various universities, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds, and after an anonymous student suggested a motion, the Students’ Guild decided to hold a referendum at Exeter.

It follows a similar event last term which saw The Sun’s page three put under scrutiny. Though that vote had a far larger turnout, it too came out in favour of no ban and bucked the trend set by other universities.

This vote had three options, a change which split the ‘condemn’ vote in the eyes of some.

The ‘Condemn and Remove’ lobby argued that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture,’ arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. Campaigners suggested that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘I know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive by the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.

Their angle will sit well with campaigners on a national level, who have criticised the song’s potential as a ‘trigger’ for rape victims. The women’s officers from the National Union of Students said: “We consider “Blurred Lines” to be deeply offensive and dangerous.  The idea that consent is a ‘blurry’ concept is outrageous. It reinforces the shameful way sexual assault is often represented in the media and wider popular culture.” The group also said “we want to see a society that recognises “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”

Organisers of the ‘no ban and condemn’ case agreed that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but felt it should not be banned. The campaign was also concerned with censorship, saying that students should have the freedom to listen to the song if they wished. Their case stated “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”

Meanwhile students in favour of ‘No change,’ who didn’t manage to muster a widespread campaign, felt that the song should not be banned or condemned by a Guild statement.

Hannah Barton, the Students’ Guild President, said: “A key purpose of the Students’ Guild is to support students to campaign on the issues close to their heart and it has been fantastic to see the student voice in action, with 488 students voting to condemn the song. Regardless of the outcome I think this campaign has raised awareness of an ongoing issue and, if students will now think more about issues ranging from rape culture to everyday sexism and ways to combat this, that is a very positive thing.”

But whilst the Guild will now make a statement condemning the song, it will continue to be played through University outlets around campus.

More coverage will follow in Tuesday’s edition of the paper.

Harrison Jones, Online News Editor

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

The Thicke of It: Don't Censor Exeter

With voting now open, Harry Chamberlain argues that “the Guild should not ban the Robin Thicke song ‘Blurred Lines’ from Guild premises or student media, because we do not believe in censoring Exeter students.”

Banning ‘Blurred Lines’ from being played in Guild outlets is nothing short of an attempt at censorship. Free speech is a prerequisite of a democracy rather than a subject to be voted on and such a motion ignores the very reason we need this freedom; in order to be able to discuss the key issues at the heart of the debate, sexism in the music industry.

Image credits: Don’t Censor Exeter

I would like to make it completely clear: I am not here to defend Robin Thicke or his song. There are numerous good reasons that the Ban campaign raises as to why the portrayal of women should be addressed – in the appropriate way. However, the motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a the music industry correctly; instead it unacceptably infringes on students’ rights.

The underlying message that the anti-censorship campaign wishes to send is that should students object to a song and its message, they do not then have the right to impose their beliefs on others by restricting their ability to hear it played in the Ram or the Lemmy. Some Lemmy DJs would not like to see the song forcibly removed from their repertoire as its catchy tune which encourages many people to dance, and ultimately enjoy themselves.What message does it send as a university, an institution that thrives on disagreement and dissensus, if we do not confront and debate questionable media but just deny others access to it?

I am not denying that the lyrics to ‘Blurred Lines’ may be interpreted as misogynistic, and that we need to address society’s wider attitudes towards women, especially in the music industry, but banning it is simply not the way to go about it.That is why we are supporting a third option, for The Guild to condemn the lyrics of the song through a press release, but still allow it to be played by Guild run outlets, such as The Lemmy and The Ram. This provides all students with a clear choice, and prevents the polarisation of the issue, as happened in The Sun debate last year.

Exeposé’s most recent print issue saw a page dedicated to imploring its readers to vote for a ban, providing little or no balance to the debate. The Students’ Guild prides themselves on being neutral on all student votes, however in this recent campaign this has not been the case in print. The original motion, to ban the song, has been lost. The campaign to ban the song has now been renamed ‘Condemn and Remove’, and despite all the SABBs agreeing that the phrase ‘Ban’ should be used, so far this has not been enforced. Let’s not forget that it is the Guild themselves who fund Exeposé’s £16,000/year printing costs. Perhaps the Guild should reconsider their funding for printing a newspaper that fails to inform its readers effectively, and fails to echo their balanced view on contentious topics such as this one.

Harry Chamberlain

[poll id=”51″]

For the views of Comment’s Online Editors on the Blurred Lines referendum as a whole, read The Thicke of It: Comment on Blurred Lines. Do you agree with Harry? Can censorship ever be justified? Can we afford to leave sexist attitudes unchallenged?  Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

'Blurred Lines' student vote begins

Photo Credit: Robin Thicke via Madame Noire

The vote deciding whether Robin Thicke’s summer hit ‘Blurred Lines’ will be banned around campus has started today.

The lyrics, which can easily be perceived as sexist, explicit nature of the video and apparent references to rape, have caused significant controversy since its release earlier this year. After a complaint from an anonymous source, The Students’ Guild launched a vote to allow students to have their say.

It was reported in the latest print edition of Exeposé that the format of the vote was to change. In previous votes such as the campaign to ban The Sun, students could vote Yes or No. However, the ‘Blurred Lines’ referendum will give students the chance to select one of three options.

The ‘Condemn and Remove‘ case strongly believes that the song upholds and accepts ‘rape culture’, arguing that it encourages the use of rape in everyday language. It argues that lyrics such as ‘I hate these blurred lines’ and ‘you know you want it’ refer to the acceptance of rape, which could be considered offensive towards the thousands of women who suffer sexual abuse every year.

Alternatively, students have the option to vote for the ‘No ban and Condemn’ case, which firmly agrees that the song contains negative and sexist qualities, but does not believe that the song should be banned. This campaign is also concerned with the issues of censorship, saying that students should be able to listen and enjoy the song if they want to. The case states “this song alone cannot be made a scapegoat for the entire music industry or our attitudes towards women in society as a whole.”

Finally students can vote for ‘No change’, for those who feel that the song should not be banned and do not wish the Guild to make a statement condemning the lyrics.

The women’s officers from the National Union of Students said: “We consider “Blurred Lines” to be deeply offensive and dangerous.  The idea that consent is a ‘blurry’ concept is outrageous. It reinforces the shameful way sexual assault is often represented in the media and wider popular culture.” The group also said “we want to see a society that recognizes “no means no,” that doesn’t engage in victim blaming and doesn’t think that rape is a “blurry” concept.”

President of the Students’ Guild, Hannah Barton said: “I believe anything we can do to reduce sexism and sexual violence is paramount especially if concerns are raised by students. We are a student-led organisation here to represent student views.”

The song has been banned by other student unions, including Kingston, Edinburgh, Derby, West Scotland and Leeds; but Exeter has a history of voting differently to other student unions, with many expecting the split ‘condemn’ options to mean the song is not banned.

The vote has been open since 9am this morning and finishes at 4pm on Friday. Students can vote via the Guild website here and read Exeposé coverage throughout the week.

Rachel Gelormini, News Team

Follow @ExeposeNews on Twitter and like us here on Facebook.

Banning The Sun: Nothing Short of Censorship

Harry Chamberlain argues why you should vote NO to banning The Sun from Guild Shops in this week’s Guild referendum.

Banning The Sun from being sold in the Guild Shop, and campaigning for its ban in the Marketplace – regardless of however many students vote for it – is nothing short of an attempt at censorship. A free press is a prerequisite of a democracy rather than a subject to be voted on, and such a motion ignores the very reason we need this freedom: to act as a counterweight to the majority, and protect the rights of the few.

“The motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a newspaper correctly, instead unacceptably infringing on students’ rights.”
Photo Credit: the|G|™ via Compfight cc

I would like to make it completely clear: I am not here to defend The Sun. I do not buy the paper, nor do I believe that bare-breasted women should be blazoned across a national newspaper.

There are numerous good reasons that the YES campaign raises as to why this issue should be addressed – in the appropriate way. However, the motion submitted definitely does not attempt to address the place of sexualisation in a newspaper correctly, instead unacceptably infringing on students’ rights.

Many have suggested that this motion is a boycott. This is misleading; a boycott involves freely deciding not to buy The Sun on moral grounds. This motion advocates a ban, and would mean nobody could buy The Sun on campus, whether they bought it to read Redknapp’s punditry, look at Page 3 – or just to catch up on the news.

Similarly, they argue it is not censorship because it is still available elsewhere. It is not a total censorship, but it is censorship nonetheless, just as a library censors books by refusing to stock them, even if they’re available at a bookstore down the road.

The underlying message that the NO campaign wishes to send is that should students object to a publication’s contents, they do not then have the right to impose their beliefs on others by restricting their access to it. How is Britain meant to set an example for developing democracies in terms of ensuring important minority rights are maintained, if we reject freedom of speech and freedom of press?

What message does it send as a university, an institution that thrives on disagreement and dissensus, if we do not confront and debate questionable media but just deny others access to it? We are not denying that Page 3 may be questionable, and that we need to address society’s wider attitudes towards women – and I would happily support a voluntary boycott of Page 3 in order to raise awareness of the issue and affect change.

I do not believe that the aim of this motion was to infringe upon freedom of speech, but rather to raise awareness for their worthy cause. Nonetheless, it has been found wanting. A poorly-worded motion has led to a profound disagreement over what there could otherwise be near-unanimous agreement on. Therefore, I call on Virginia Walsh and the organisers of the YES campaign to withdraw their motion to try and ban The Sun from being sold on campus.

In its place, I would like to propose the following motion: “Should the Student’s Guild condemn The Sun for its attitudes towards women, publicly come out in support of the No More Page 3 campaign, and call for a voluntary boycott of the newspaper until the editors remove the bare boobs from Page 3?”

All of us at the NO campaign would have no qualms about supporting such a motion.

Harry Chamberlain

Click here to vote NO in the Guild Referendum. For the view from the opposition, read Virginia Walsh’s Banning The Sun: Boobs Aren’t News. Did you vote? If so, which way? If not, why not? Leave a comment below or write to the Comment team at the Exeposé Comment Facebook Group or on Twitter @CommentExepose.

Samantha Brick and Censorship: Drawing the Line Between Freedom of Speech and Harmful Media

Online Features Editor Meg Lawrence discusses Samantha Brick’s most recent article, and whether it provokes a need for censorship in the media.

Samantha Brick. Image Credits: The Telegraph

All you women out there, take heed. Forget enquiring minds, successful careers, kindness and a sense of humour. The way to a man’s heart (which is all any of us are concerned with) is with a thin body. Well, so says Samantha Brick.

Who is Samantha Brick, you may ask. For those of you blissfully unaccustomed to the utter drivel this freelance journalist espouses, she basically made headlines in The Daily Mail recently for agreeing with actress Joan Collins that that any woman who wants to stay beautiful needs to diet every day of her life. (If you want to see just how terrible the article is, read it for yourself here).

Stating that, ‘any self-respecting woman wants to be thin’ and admitting that, ‘my husband of five years frequently tells me that if I put on weight he will divorce me,’ Brick attempts to persuade her audience that women who don’t diet won’t achieve anything in life. The article is ignorant, degrading and dangerous. It’s not even amusing, as if that could be an excuse for outdated, outmoded and possibly outrageous opinion.

But it’s not the first time that The Mail has published such an article. Whilst Brick features regularly in their content, spouting article after article of useless garble, The Mail use other women such as Liz Jones and Amanda Platell, to voice opinions that degrade not only themselves but the whole female sex.

In an article for The Guardian, Hadley Freeman rightly pointed out that The Mail, ‘uses its female writers as Trojan horses to voice its most misogynistic attitudes, whether it’s having them embody the worst kind of female stereotypes through their confessional journalism, or having them write horrible things about other women.’ Women make up 53% of The Mail’s readership, yet they still get away with publishing such demeaning nonsense.

I wouldn’t seek to censor Brick – after all, we live in a society where freedom of speech and a free press are valuable commodities. However, I’d be heartened if the backlash was a little more prominent, fervent or passionate. I can accept Joan Collins’ old-fashioned ideals. She found fame at a time when women were often valued purely on looks. I don’t like what she says but I expect it. But the same cannot be said for Brick. And The Daily Mail cannot use the argument of airing a debate as a reason to continue peddling this downright stupid tat.

Exeter student Cara Delaney has decided to take action with her recent petition entitled ‘The Daily Mail: Stop Publishing Articles by Samantha Brick.’ Along with the 327 other supporters who have already signed the petition, Delaney has pledged to boycott The Mail until they show some responsibility for the articles they are publishing.

When asked why the campaign was so important to her, Cara said: ‘In the last year I’ve watched one of my best friends suffer through an eating disorder.’ She added: ‘Women aren’t treated like people in the media- they are treated like sex objects, and are under pressure to look perfect. The Daily Mail has published this article as if it’s a real piece of news, and this validates Samantha Brick’s terrible and damaging opinions.’

The Mail thrives on publishing stories that will provoke, and they enjoy the attention this creates. However, when the articles they produce could adversely affect the lives of their readers, something must be done to stop them. At the very least they should be challenged on their reasons for publishing such rubbish when real issues that genuinely affect women’s lives – poverty, human rights, childcare, careers, health, education, equality – go unmentioned.

The mainstream press has a duty to write informative, challenging, entertaining, newsworthy stories. There will always be a place for opinion pieces – but please let’s have a sense of purpose to them. How on earth does it help a single reader to discover that Brick is married to a man who fails to see her in any other light than the size dress she wears? Unless I was a divorce lawyer I’d have turned the page before getting beyond the first few paragraphs.

To sign Cara’s petition, click here.

Meg Lawrence, Online Features Editor