For those of you that are unaware of the incident at hand, the Colorado State University’s student-run newspaper printed a four word editorial in response to the tasing of the University of Florida student on September 18, 2007.
Their statement read:
“TASER THIS: F--K BUSH”
Followed by:
“This is the view of the Collegian editorial board” (1).
I may be a softy, but the publicly printed use of profanity gives me the chills. Especially when done in a fashion that only is prompted by the desire to gain attention. The act of being controversial just to be controversial is a disgrace to good journalism and writing everywhere.
While the Editorial made its point loud and clear, I cannot help but feel they went about it the wrong way. Their act to stand behind a fellow university student could have been done with decency, and their actions would have seemed far more just.
After an incident involving a man sporting a jacket that bore the statement, “F--K THE DRAFT, the court held that, The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace” (2).
The two statements were similar in that they short, simple, and crude. They do little to prompt scholarly debate and come off as immature.
However, what has since erupted from this statement is a battle of republicans vs. democrats; Not the Editorial Board’s supposed desire to defend the First Amendment by practicing the freedoms it stands for.
As I am an aspiring journalist, my thoughts and hopes are now with the Editor – in – Chief of the Collegian, J. David McSwane. As he is the sole individual that has taken the rap for this statement, his position as editor is in jeopardy. While I cannot agree with his decision to run such a message, he is still learning and this ordeal has served as a great lesson for him.
As for immediate consequences, “The editorial board [while] facing criticism on and off campus and losing an estimated $30,000 in ad revenue, claims the editorial was an exercise of, and call to protect, free speech on campus” (3).
In response to demands for McSwane to resign, McSwane is holding firm. In a letter written to the public defending his decision to print the message, McSwane admits his frustration with the situation, “While the editorial board feels strongly with regard to first amendment issues, we have found the unintended consequences of such a bold statement to be extremely disheartening. The First Amendment is at the very core of what we do as a newspaper. We as journalists wish to celebrate it, utilize it and, sometimes, defend it” (4)
I am completely in agreement with McSwane’s last sentence; The First Amendment is something I refuse to take for granted and I will do whatever I can to uphold its incredible freedom. While he was within his limits, I cannot agree with his method for exercising this freedom.
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
(3)http://www.nsns.org/news/taser-this
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/business/media/01taser.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
4 comments:
Okay, the fact that this happened and was actually printed really frusterates me. As an aspiring journalist too, it is really disappointing to see someone in a position I aspire to be in one day ALLOW that sort of content in his paper. Then when I here myself say just that statement out loud, I shake my head and can't believe that I did. It makes sense to me to that language like FUCK should not be printed in a newspaper, but like I said, when I see that in text our hear it in my head, it just screams BUT YOU HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION!
In my research, I came across a quote from a lawyer who defended a priest who had a pair of anti-gay statements printed of Billboards. The billboard company had the boards covered up soon after they sparked controversy among the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgenger) community. The lawyer said, "I disapprove with what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it."
That's kind of how I feel about this case. I don't think that it should have been printed, simply out of bad taste, however I in no way want to downplay the importance of freedom of speech in journalism and think it should be protected to its fullest.
If you do a quick google search on the phrase "Fuck Bush" you can find hundreds of thousands of blogs and other sites which have this phrase on their webpage. Most of these existed long before Colorado State ran their editorial. The growing discontent for this president is no secret and neither is people's tendency to use obscene words to bluntly voice their disapproval. The fact that this was printed in a newspaper instead of in cyberspace should make no difference, it is a simple free speech issue that should clearly be covered by the First Amendment.
As you say, the act of being controversial for the sake of controversy is probably one that is frowned upon on the well traveled paths of professional journalism. That said, statements like the one issued in The Rocky mountain Collegian are absolutely vital, in my opinion, to uphold the tenants of free speech and public debate on an issue. The statements referred to throughout your blog I agree are within constitutional protection, but I also believe in their worth as political statement- just to be controversial or not.
I would venture to argue that both of the statements you referenced as prompting little scholarly debate in fact prompted large amounts of it. For instance, in the case you brought up, Cohen v. California, where nine justices of the Supreme Court deliberated on the extent that the speech “Fuck the Draft” was protected by the Constitution, and set new bounds as to how far the first amendment would protect speech and expression period, I would say that a good deal of scholarly debate went on expressly because of the statement in question. Also, the very fact that we are discussing it here, in a democratic forum of free expression, in, if I may pay ourselves a complement, a scholarly manner, indicates that the statement from Cohen v. California was not devoid of compelling content, as the court upheld (1).
I do fully agree with your ending statements indicating that McSwane of The Rocky Mountain Collegian was fully within his rights to print the subject matter in question. The only query that I have is, if this speech is not considered scholarly and therefore, of less worth, who says speech must be “scholarly” to be worthy?
I am sure crude statements like “Fuck the Draft” and “Taser This: Fuck Bush,” those statements that utilize coarser speech to relay their meaning, can and do spark a wide range of debate among non-scholars. The idea that these statements serve to stimulate debate at all- that they rouse a questioning process, “Why would anyone want to fuck Bush?” “ What is this whole tasering situation about?”- is a credit to their worthiness as protected and vital (2). Any statement freely given that serves to politicize, or even just to get people thinking about a subject politically at all, is one of incalculable value, especially in our depoliticized society today.
1. http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:YtmLGz9On6wJ:caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl%3Ffriend%3Dnytimes%26court%3Dus%26vol%3D403%26invol%3D15+cohen+v.+california+findlaw&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a
2. http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.This-2984348.shtml
This statement has examples of the widespread debate the editorial of the Rocky Mountain Collegian has sparked.
With our country and foreign policy the way it is under Bush, it has become more and more obvious that people are frustrated. They have tried the old fashion ways of speaking politely and writing respectively to get their opinions across about Bush and government. But people are now trying to find more ways to get their point across. And they should have the protection under the first amendment to speak out against the president.
Especially in a college newspaper, where it can be incredibly beneficial to all of the students, who are in fact, legal adults. It would be more understandable to censor the statement if it was made in a high school or middle school newspaper, where children would most likely read it. But these are 18+ aged people. And these are the times when we should be highly involved in government, what with the presidential debate coming up. In my oponion, the newspaper should not have gotten into truoble at all over this statement. As long as they had a well researched story to back it up, any college newspaper should be able to say what it thinks it should.
Post a Comment