The controversy surrounding Assange is complex, and whilst his retreat is not to be held as conclusive evidence that he is a rapist, his refusal to return to Sweden, for whatever reason, is certainly ironic when he is speaking at an institution that prides itself on the promotion of free speech. His self-imposed imprisonment represents a denial of exactly that.
Amy Schumer isn't the only Comedian who has recently come under fire for what was deemed inappropriate. Jerry Seinfeld, Trevor Noah and Stewart Lee are amongst of multitude of Comedians that have had objections raised by the Twitterazzi in reaction to their material recently. The real question is, "Who gets to draw the line?"
It only takes one riled individual setting fire to something they shouldn't to tarnish the entire group. Appearing on the news that night, their cause is lost in a story about out-of-control rebels in violent disarray. If you are that individual, it's simple: leave the spray paint, the petrol and the expletive laden placards at home, and come up with something more purposeful to chant.
Four salient reasons to resist the rise of trigger warnings in higher education and general usage. For the sake of resisting censorship by stealth, for the sake of artistic integrity, for the sake of maintaining serious intellectual openness in higher education, and for the sake of those suffering from trauma themselves, I beg you - don't get too trigger-happy.
Millions were wringing their hands this week in anxiety over the fate of BBC motormouth Jeremy Clarkson. Meanwhile, on the streets of East London on Thursday night the police were cracking down on Class War's sweary summing up of popular sentiment towards our political leaders, to complete indifference of the media.
I am a great supporter of this fundamental principle of democracy and I expect it is exercised in good faith and without deliberately distorting the obvious truth. An article published on 8 March by the Daily Mail, with the title "Romanian fury over Channel 4 documentary as their MPs ask: What if we made a programme saying all Brits were alcoholics and paedophiles?" doesn't make me question the principle, but the author's good faith and respect for the truth.
The problem with the freedom of speech debate is not only that those who advocate it co-opt it for negative use, or that those who use it think that exercising freedom of speech and being deserving of being listened to are mutually exclusive, but is that invective and hateful language is moulded into common vernacular with the play of society's very own Get Out of Jail Free card.
These rules aren't instructions on how to be funny. They certainly won't stop anyone taking offence. These rules are, however, a statement of what I hope is a reasonably clear moral position which preserves the right to criticise and caricature in such a way that the ideals of a liberal society are still upheld.