Debate Forums
> General Debate Forum
> Freedom of Speech-link Contains Profanity
TOPICS
DOCTOR QUESTIONS
Q: Freedom of Speech-link Contains Profanity
asked by:
sillyakchick
Extremely eHealthy
|
Replies(4)
lonestarguy
Active User, very eHealthy
| sillyakchick wrote: |
| WARNING THIS LINK CONTAINS EXPLICIT LANGUAGE
http://media.myfoxcolorado.com/special-pro jects/collegian.html The Story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297708 ,00.html Recently a story run in the Colorado State university Collegian newspaper sparked uproar and criticism by printing an editorial containing the f-bomb in its title. Was this protected speech or just attention seeking behavior? Although officials at the Collegian do indicate that the story run did not violate the terms and conditions of running an editorial in the paper, many university officials are calling for the dismissal of the Editor of the paper, J. David McSwain. To complicate matters, The paper stands to lose 30,000 in advertising revenue provided by the CSU bookstore who recently pulled ads from the paper in protest of their decision to publish blatant profanity. What are your thoughts on this? |
This freedom of speech example has come up time and again on college and high school campuses. I have served as an advisor of both high school and college newspapers and have faced a similar situation.
I will admit that the situation I faced in college did not include profanity, but it did involve the President at the time. In our case, there was also a student advisory board, which had the ultimate choice of whether to run a particular editorial, which many might find offensive.
The student advisory board was composed of students from different majors and walks of life and I was an ex-officio non-voting member. I heard the arguments for running the editorial with the proponents using freedom of speech and the objections of others, who wanted to pull it from the newspaper.
The board ultimately voted 4-3 for running the editorial, even though all of us knew it might set off a firestorm of controversy, both on campus and in the surrounding community. The editor of the newspaper did run a small explanation in the same issue explaining why the board decided to run it.
When the issue came out, it did cause a lot of criticism from the community newspaper, which described the newspaper staff as "typical college students with little real journalistic integrity." The administration also fielded many inquiries from outside entities, asking why the newspaper didn't print an apology and retract the editorial.
Luckily, the school officials did not back down and even supported the newspaper's freedom of speech to publish its views without having to censor itself. Personally, I was feeling pretty good after all the hoopla died down because I thought it was an important lesson, not only for the students, but also for the community and the school administration.
I felt the system had worked. The only one not benefiting from the situation was the President at the time, who was slammed hard in the editorial.
The Colorado State situation, to me, is much more complicated. Complicated because the newspaper chose to make the headline in very large type, which indicated that the staff had created something that the average reader could not avoid if offended. Generally, collegiate newspapers do not use 72-point type very often unless it's a story like 9-11, like once-in-a-decade type stories.
The freedom of speech defense generally plays better in cases where the ordinary reader has a choice whether to read an item or not. Maybe the board did not consider the financial implications of what the headline would cause. Believe me, real newspapers do consider every financial implication that the editorial side could cause.
So, I guess I'm not in favor of freedom of speech in this case and I'm glad I'm not the newspaper advisor at Colorado State either.
|
Birch
Extremely eHealthy
| lonestarguy wrote: |
|
This freedom of speech example has come up time and again on college and high school campuses. I have served as an advisor of both high school and college newspapers and have faced a similar situation. I will admit that the situation I faced in college did not include profanity, but it did involve the President at the time. In our case, there was also a student advisory board, which had the ultimate choice of whether to run a particular editorial, which many might find offensive. The student advisory board was composed of students from different majors and walks of life and I was an ex-officio non-voting member. I heard the arguments for running the editorial with the proponents using freedom of speech and the objections of others, who wanted to pull it from the newspaper. The board ultimately voted 4-3 for running the editorial, even though all of us knew it might set off a firestorm of controversy, both on campus and in the surrounding community. The editor of the newspaper did run a small explanation in the same issue explaining why the board decided to run it. When the issue came out, it did cause a lot of criticism from the community newspaper, which described the newspaper staff as "typical college students with little real journalistic integrity." The administration also fielded many inquiries from outside entities, asking why the newspaper didn't print an apology and retract the editorial. Luckily, the school officials did not back down and even supported the newspaper's freedom of speech to publish its views without having to censor itself. Personally, I was feeling pretty good after all the hoopla died down because I thought it was an important lesson, not only for the students, but also for the community and the school administration. I felt the system had worked. The only one not benefiting from the situation was the President at the time, who was slammed hard in the editorial. The Colorado State situation, to me, is much more complicated. Complicated because the newspaper chose to make the headline in very large type, which indicated that the staff had created something that the average reader could not avoid if offended. Generally, collegiate newspapers do not use 72-point type very often unless it's a story like 9-11, like once-in-a-decade type stories. The freedom of speech defense generally plays better in cases where the ordinary reader has a choice whether to read an item or not. Maybe the board did not consider the financial implications of what the headline would cause. Believe me, real newspapers do consider every financial implication that the editorial side could cause. |
In the case of the Pres, did s/he have the freedom from defamation of character (or the like) or was what was printed substantially true?
Personally, I dislike usage of four lettered words like this one. I'd much rather read something creative than a four lettered word stuck in for shock value.
On the other hand, that headline succinctly describes my sentiments entirely.
| lonestarguy wrote: |
|
So, I guess I'm not in favor of freedom of speech in this case and I'm glad I'm not the newspaper advisor at Colorado State either. |
Well played.
|
lonestarguy
Active User, very eHealthy
| Birch wrote: | ||||
In the case of the Pres, did s/he have the freedom from defamation of character (or the like) or was what was printed substantially true? Personally, I dislike usage of four lettered words like this one. I'd much rather read something creative than a four lettered word stuck in for shock value. On the other hand, that headline succinctly describes my sentiments entirely.
Well played. |
In the case at my school, the editorial did, in point of fact, get very graphic about the personal habits of the President. It used no profane words, but described several sexual escapades in clinical terms which many readers found very offensive. It was written from the position that the President must be above reproach and these acts were examples of unfitness to lead the country.
It also asked for the President's resignation or impeachment (and I believe the wording said *whichever is faster*). It was written by the editor of the newspaper, but she had help from other students. She accepted any blame in advance and even wrote a preface to the editorial explaining the stance of the paper.
In this instance, the college newspaper took the first shot at the peccadillos of the President and it could have been taken to court for defamation of character. However, it would have been very difficult to prove that the instances did not occur since they were documented by eyewitnesses. So, all that was written came from sources checked and found to be true. It became a moot point a week later when almost all of the nation's newspaper broke stories about the same things. Some even mentioned the character of the President being paramount to conducting the nation's business and Congress got involved later.
In a case like this, sources have to be checked and rechecked. It's required that each fact has to be substantiated by at least two different sources. In journalism law, that is a defense in court as long as you reveal the sources. But you have probably seen reporters that refuse to reveal the identitity of their sources and the judge slaps them with a comtempt of court citation. They then go to jail until they reveal the source or the judge lets them out.
|
Birch
Extremely eHealthy
|
