Background: PETITION TO BAN JULIEN BLANC FROM SINGAPORE TO PREVENT RAPE CULTURE
In case you haven't heard, self-proclaimed pick-up artist Julien Blanc has been barred from entering Singapore. According to the Straits Times article, no definite reason was explicitly stated, although it hinted that the bar was due to his seminars/events that propagate violence against women.
To be immoderately pedantic, this is the quote (by Chan Chun Sing) that I'm referring to:
ICA will not allow Mr Blanc into Singapore, especially if he is here to hold seminars or events that propagate violence against women.
Before the feminists cry foul over my perceived misogyny, let me state clearly my position: I do not agree with, nor support, his pick-up "tactics". But I absolutely disagree with outright barring him from entry.
1. Firstly, barring Julien Blanc because of the content of his dating seminars/courses is akin to censorship. What is the practical difference between denying him (and the information he preaches) entry and denying access to websites hosting questionable content? In my opinion, not much, if at all. I'm hugely against all (except in the most extreme cases) forms of government-imposed blanket censorship because of the ethical quagmire it presents.
- What is the criteria for assessing the suitability of information for the masses?
- Why is it so?
- Who developed this set of criteria?
- Why do they get to decide what I get to access?
- And more in the same vein...