Censorship? Freedom?
Sep 27th, 2007 by Amanda
CSU is getting a lot of press this week. The editor of the student newspaper wrote and printed an editorial that consisted of only four words:
Taser this…F*ck Bush
The profanity was, of course, spelled out.
From the Rocky Mountain News:
J. David McSwane, editor-in- chief of the Rocky Mountain Collegian at Colorado State University, could be suspended or fired if CSU’s Board of Student Communications determines the editorial violated student media policies.
[…]
The editorial sparked almost immediate controversy. Complaints rolled in, local businesses pulled ads, and CSU President Larry Penley issued a statement saying he was disappointed with the decision to run it.
McSwane said most of the criticism had come from nonstudents and called critics a “vocal minority.”
McSwane said he also has heard from students and alumni who support the editorial.
The Collegian, which is published Monday through Friday while classes are in session, is a self-funded, student-run publication. It does not receive money from student fees, and under state law, university officials are prohibited from censoring or regulating its content.
It has an adviser, but student media policies say advisers do not review or approve content before it is published.
The publisher of the Collegianand other student-run media, and the entity responsible for overseeing them, is the Board of Student Communications, made up of three faculty members and six students. It also includes the leaders of each student media publication, including McSwane, as nonvoting members.
Among the board’s policies is a specific reference to profane and vulgar words. It states that such words should “not be used in news accounts or letters to the editor unless they are considered by the editor-in-chief to be essential to readers’ understanding of the situation.”
“Profane and vulgar words are not acceptable for opinion writing,” the policy also states.
McSwane said he has no plans to resign.
“That would be an insult to my staff, who have supported me,” he said.
The newspaper’s seven-member editorial board agreed on the editorial before it was published. Though it wasn’t a unanimous vote in favor, it “wasn’t close,” McSwane said.
Last night on the news I saw snippets of the “hearing” and there were some good points made, and some really stupid points made. The majority of those against the editorial - and those who think McSwane should step down as editor - claimed the content was “inappropriate” and cost the paper valuable advertising revenue. One student backed up the freedom of speech angle but proclaimed, “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.” A valid point, certainly.
My favorite argument in favor of McSwane was the student who said, “This lesson is teaching us that if we speak our mind we will be punished.”
And it is for that reason that I support McSwane and do not think he should be punished for expressing his views.
“This lesson is teaching us that if we speak our mind we will be punished.”
There’s a difference between expressing your views constructively and destructively, though. I don’t know if McSwane should be punished or not. I think it was poor character to write such a derogatory editorial. What he wrote doesn’t tell the reader why he feels what he does about Bush. I see comments like this all the time online and, since they don’t have any intelligent arguments backing them up, I just ingore them and attribute them to someone who’s just angry for no good reason.
I hope that ramble made sense. I got a serious lack of sleep last night!
since they don’t have any intelligent arguments backing them up
am I interpreting this correctly? You are saying there are no intelligent arguments to back up criticism against Bush? (Tech ready to unleash barrage of information)
Or are you saying that in general, people don’t back up their strong opinions with facts, but instead just choose to say things like “Bush sucks”, or “Just Say No to Hilary”?
I’m fairly certain she’s saying that in cases like this (of one liners) there’s no intelligent argument backing up the way the person feels.
Gotta agree with her there.
Sorry, but there are plenty of reasons why every single American should be SCREAMING F**K Bush at the top of his/her lungs.
We should not be afraid to voice our opinions and feelings. That is the essence of freedom. You may not agree with what he said or how he said it, but that doesn’t change his absolute right to say it.
I, for one, could not agree with him more!
I just don’t see what good that does. Why should i listen to you or anyone else who just says “I hate hilary/bush/democrats/republicans/ christians/fundies/atheists/acupuncturists/
…..
you get idea. Yeah, I think this president has done more damage to this country than any of his predecessors on security, education, science in general, the environment, foreign relations, privacy, civil liberties, food safety, and a variety of other subjects. But for me to go out and start screaming “Screw Bush!” doesn’t accomplish anything (or nothing much). It just makes people who are on the fence dislike you.
And most people are on the fence (as evidenced by public opinion polls swaying left and right, left and right).
i didn’t say you have to listen. You can completely ignore the F**K bush and go along your merry way. However, there were people who read the editorial, agreed with it, and are thrilled it was written.
I’m sure McSwane has no interest in whether or not people like him. He spoke his mind, as many of us do, without regard to the possibility that people might not like him. I don’t know many people who are that thin-skinned that they would refrain from speaking their minds on the off chance that someone might grimace a bit.
The Sheeple are always going to be on the fence, swaying back and forth because they can’t think for themselves. Hopefully McSwane brought a few of them to this side of the debate.
Ok… let’s put it aside that what McSwane wrote happened to be about Bush.
Pretend it’s someone you really don’t care about, maybe the CSU President.
It’s a CRAPPY editorial. It would have been better with a cartoon drawing and that as a header… but as an editorial???
Look at the editorials in the times or registers, they back their opinions up.
Those 4 words he wrote, wasn’t a proper editorial, it was a rant. Plain and simple. “I hate so and so and I want the world to know it.”
BIG DEAL! It’s not like many others don’t share it, but for an editor-in-chief to let a article that isn’t an article in his paper like that… it’s just not done.
Editorials were my favorite thing to write for a school paper, because it’s something you feel strongly for, but doesn’t mean I nor my fellow reporters went and simply ranted, we “REPORTED”.
Feel what you want to feel about Bush. Say what you want to say. None the less -It’s still a crappy editorial.
“Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.”
To me this seems incoherent. If you have freedom of speech, surely by definition you have freedom from certain classes of consequence? Otherwise, what on earth do they mean by “freedom”?