At Occidental College in California, a controversial case that started over three years ago was finally settled. The case began when a student named Jason Antebi was fired from his job as a campus radio show host. On the student run college radio station, KOXY, Antebi made some comments about certain students involved in student government, calling one a "bearded feminist" and another a "half-man, half-vagina" and yet another a "douche." After Antebi was fired, he sued the school for 10 million dollars and a new rule in the school's policy that would protect future students in similar situations from being fired. Antebi claimed that the college had violated his First Amendment rights as well as the California Leonard law which states that students who attend private schools in California are given rights similar to those granted by the First Amendment. http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1632
The California Supreme Court decided not to review Antebi's case at first and dismissed the charges on the college. But after Antebi appealed the school decided to settle by paying Antebi an undisclosed amount of money. By this time, Antebi had already graduated from the college without ever having gotten his job as radio host back.
Was the college right to fire Antebi for saying rude comments about his peers? If the Leonard law is supposed to protect students' free speech at private schools in California, why was Antebi's case so easily dismissed at first? If Antebi had not decided to appeal his case after the first court decision, this could have had dire effects for student speech, rendering the Leonard law useless. In Antebi's own words, “A student could author a potentially damaging story, be expelled in response, and then be denied recourse.” California courts should not have the Leonard law if they are not willing to uphold it when it comes to trial. http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1362&year=2006
This case is similar to the popular Don Imus controversy in which Imus was fired from his radio host job for making racist and derogatory comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team. The only difference between the cases is that Imus's comments were made on an MSNBC radio show and Antebi's were made on a college radio show, and it is a big difference. Because a school's primary concern is keeping an educational and scholarly environment, I can understand why Antebi was fired. The students Antebi offended were done so on the college campus and the school was more concerned about maintaining a stable environment for all the students then about Antebi's free speech.
Because college students are adults, they typically tend to have more freedom when it comes to speech on campus then high school students on school grounds. But even the most liberal college campuses now have enforced rules regarding free speech. The Encyclopedia of Everyday Law states, "the most recent free-speech issue to hit college campuses involves so-called hate speech codes. These are codes passed by colleges that restrict speech considered offensive to other groups on campus, particularly speech that is believed to be racist or sexist."
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/student-rights-free-speech
Colleges are simply aiming for the same goal as primary education schools are. They are all trying to maintain a safe, comfortable environment as best as they can. Colleges believe it is more important for their students to be able to walk around campus without hearing hateful comments about themselves or their peers then it is to have the freedom to make those comments.
I am unsure how I feel personally about this issue. I believe free speech is important, especially on a college campus. But if the speech is hurtful and aimed at a particular person or group, and is affecting the person or groups learning experience, should it be allowed? Students go to college to learn and if they are becoming overly stressed about hateful speech, they are losing some of their focus on their education. But on the other side of the argument, free speech is a right and if college students are not allowed to speak their minds, how will they deal when they leave the campus where they are not as shielded from the hateful comments made to the public? But because schools are separate from the rest of the public, it really is up to the administrators to enforce whatever codes they deem fit.
Occidental College is not the only college feeling the restraints against free speech. In an article in USA Today, Nat Hentoff writes, "on many campuses, the right to free speech, however contentious, is under siege. The politically correct "speech codes" — forbidding speech that might offend one's race, sexual orientation, religion, et al. — have been folded into codes of conduct under the continuing assumption by some students and administrators that there is a constitutional right not to be offended." http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-18-free-speech_x.htm Hentoff strongly believes in the college students right to free speech, and she makes a good point. Speech is our right, but avoiding uncomfortable situations such as feeling offended is not. She is trying to say that while it is nice not to be offended, our right to speak our minds should come first. Hentoff is not looking at this from the angle of the school administrators, who are trying to make college a peaceful learning environment. But she does make a convincing argument. Our free speech in colleges is becoming more and more restricted every year. Who knows what new speech codes will arise in the future.
Sources:
Antebi article#1:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1632
Antebi article#2:
http://www.splc.org/newsflash_archives.asp?id=1362&year=2006
Encyclopedia of Everyday Law article:
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/student-rights-free-speech
USA Today article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-04-18-free-speech_x.htm
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Should banning harsh words in music be allowed, or is it a form of censorship?
"Man this ho you can have her, when I'm done I ain't gon keep her
Man, bitches come and go, every nigga pimpin know
You saying it's secret, but you ain't gotta keep it on the low
Bitch choose with me, I'll have you stripping in the street
Put my other hoes down, you get your ass beat
Now Nik my bottom bitch, she always come up with my bread
The last nigga she was with put stitches in her head"
--50 Cent, P.I.M.P.
The preceding is a segment of lyrics from a popular rap song by the artist 50 Cent. This song was played on many radio stations and its video has been shown all over the country. But MTv and BET networks are trying to change that. On September 25, Viacom's Chief Executive Officer Philippe Dauman made the announcement that networks such as MTv and BET no longer allow the words bitch, ho, or nigger in their music videos. Viacom's representatives believe these words are degrading to women and African Americans and should not be allowed in music, which brings up the argument concerning freedom of speech. Shouldn't music artists be allowed to express themselves as freely as someone on the street?
Viacom Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush said the restriction "isn't intended to pillory the entertainment industry or restrict freedom of speech. I respect the First Amendment and I note that great art is always controversial, but we must also accept responsibility in our freedom of expression.'' Rush believes that we must "balance free speech against discouraging media outlets from airing degrading material." According to Rush, the best way to achieve this balance is by banning words. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=20601087&sid=aGUjRJoPeHeU
Viacom is not the only one that feels this way. Russel Simmons, the founder of hip-hop record label Def Jam, also believes the same three words should be removed from all songs and albums and not allowed to be written into any future songs. He says, "The words 'bitch' and 'ho' are utterly derogatory and disrespectful of the painful, hurtful, misogyny that, in particular, African-American women have experienced in the United States as part of the history of oppression, inequality, and suffering of women." Simmons goes on to add, "The word 'nigger' is a racially derogatory term that disrespects the pain, suffering, history of racial oppression, and multiple forms of racism against African-Americans and other people of colour." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6586787.stm
To the casual observer it could seem like Viacom and Simmons are only trying to clean up the music industry, but when viewed more closely, it appears they are pushing for the censorship of music. To this argument Simmons retorts, "It is important to re-emphasise that our internal discussions with industry leaders are not about censorship. Our discussions are about the corporate social responsibility of the industry to voluntarily show respect to African-Americans and other people of colour, African-American women and to all women in lyrics and images." But forbidding the music industry to include such words and forcing them to remove words from already written and published songs is an extreme form of censorship.
If the derogatory words are such an issue, there are other, less extreme ways of solving this problem. In songs like the one I have posted above, the words in question could be "bleeped" out when played on the radio, as most already are. Yes, this takes away from the presentation of the song, but it allows the artist to speak and write freely while still shielding viewers and listeners from the harsh words. Another solution is to only broadcast the songs and videos containing harsh words between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, when children are most likely to be asleep. Though this does not stop adults from being offended, it can prevent children from hearing such harsh words. But I doubt these solutions would satisfy those who, like Simmons, feel so strongly about banning words in music. And there are many who do feel the same way as Simmons. An article in the New York Times describes how Simmons has the right idea when it says, "Mr. Simmons’s...deserves credit for...endorsing the kind of soft censorship that many of hip-hop’s detractors are too squeamish to mention. Hip-hop fans have come to expect that many of their favorite songs will reach radio in expurgated form with curses, epithets, drug references and mentions of violence deleted." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/arts/music/25hiph.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The article is describing how the American public has become so accustomed to the censorship already permitted in music.
Along with the artists' freedom to write and say what they want, an argument against the banning of derogatory speech could be that the listener or viewer has the right to hear what they want. This is the opinion of many music lovers. The public feels so strongly against the banning that they have taken steps to stop it. In a website created solely for fighting censorship of music, the author says, "We cannot just stand idle and have people...telling us what’s right and wrong and what we should and shouldn't be listening to. Not only does censorship infringe the musician’s rights, but it also infringes upon the consumer’s right to buy or hear whatever he or she pleases. The consumers should be the ones deciding what music is and isn’t offensive." http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/stadium/2742/censorinfo.html#Whatswrong
The author of this site is leading up to an important point. If the government is allowed to fully censor music, whats next? Censorship is definitely a slippery slope. It is easy to see why so many people are afraid of allowing the government to ban certain words and phrases, even offensive and derogatory speech. The public should have the right to decide which music to listen to, and if they prefer to hear music containing harsh language, then it should be their choice to hear it. Even though radio is already censored, the consumer should be able to purchase albums exactly as the artist wrote it, and not a censored version. To be honest, I hate the derogatory and offensive language used in music, especially in rap, but I hate censorship more, and prohibiting the use of certain words in music is definitely censorship.
Man, bitches come and go, every nigga pimpin know
You saying it's secret, but you ain't gotta keep it on the low
Bitch choose with me, I'll have you stripping in the street
Put my other hoes down, you get your ass beat
Now Nik my bottom bitch, she always come up with my bread
The last nigga she was with put stitches in her head"
--50 Cent, P.I.M.P.
The preceding is a segment of lyrics from a popular rap song by the artist 50 Cent. This song was played on many radio stations and its video has been shown all over the country. But MTv and BET networks are trying to change that. On September 25, Viacom's Chief Executive Officer Philippe Dauman made the announcement that networks such as MTv and BET no longer allow the words bitch, ho, or nigger in their music videos. Viacom's representatives believe these words are degrading to women and African Americans and should not be allowed in music, which brings up the argument concerning freedom of speech. Shouldn't music artists be allowed to express themselves as freely as someone on the street?
Viacom Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush said the restriction "isn't intended to pillory the entertainment industry or restrict freedom of speech. I respect the First Amendment and I note that great art is always controversial, but we must also accept responsibility in our freedom of expression.'' Rush believes that we must "balance free speech against discouraging media outlets from airing degrading material." According to Rush, the best way to achieve this balance is by banning words. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=20601087&sid=aGUjRJoPeHeU
Viacom is not the only one that feels this way. Russel Simmons, the founder of hip-hop record label Def Jam, also believes the same three words should be removed from all songs and albums and not allowed to be written into any future songs. He says, "The words 'bitch' and 'ho' are utterly derogatory and disrespectful of the painful, hurtful, misogyny that, in particular, African-American women have experienced in the United States as part of the history of oppression, inequality, and suffering of women." Simmons goes on to add, "The word 'nigger' is a racially derogatory term that disrespects the pain, suffering, history of racial oppression, and multiple forms of racism against African-Americans and other people of colour." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6586787.stm
To the casual observer it could seem like Viacom and Simmons are only trying to clean up the music industry, but when viewed more closely, it appears they are pushing for the censorship of music. To this argument Simmons retorts, "It is important to re-emphasise that our internal discussions with industry leaders are not about censorship. Our discussions are about the corporate social responsibility of the industry to voluntarily show respect to African-Americans and other people of colour, African-American women and to all women in lyrics and images." But forbidding the music industry to include such words and forcing them to remove words from already written and published songs is an extreme form of censorship.
If the derogatory words are such an issue, there are other, less extreme ways of solving this problem. In songs like the one I have posted above, the words in question could be "bleeped" out when played on the radio, as most already are. Yes, this takes away from the presentation of the song, but it allows the artist to speak and write freely while still shielding viewers and listeners from the harsh words. Another solution is to only broadcast the songs and videos containing harsh words between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am, when children are most likely to be asleep. Though this does not stop adults from being offended, it can prevent children from hearing such harsh words. But I doubt these solutions would satisfy those who, like Simmons, feel so strongly about banning words in music. And there are many who do feel the same way as Simmons. An article in the New York Times describes how Simmons has the right idea when it says, "Mr. Simmons’s...deserves credit for...endorsing the kind of soft censorship that many of hip-hop’s detractors are too squeamish to mention. Hip-hop fans have come to expect that many of their favorite songs will reach radio in expurgated form with curses, epithets, drug references and mentions of violence deleted." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/arts/music/25hiph.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
The article is describing how the American public has become so accustomed to the censorship already permitted in music.
Along with the artists' freedom to write and say what they want, an argument against the banning of derogatory speech could be that the listener or viewer has the right to hear what they want. This is the opinion of many music lovers. The public feels so strongly against the banning that they have taken steps to stop it. In a website created solely for fighting censorship of music, the author says, "We cannot just stand idle and have people...telling us what’s right and wrong and what we should and shouldn't be listening to. Not only does censorship infringe the musician’s rights, but it also infringes upon the consumer’s right to buy or hear whatever he or she pleases. The consumers should be the ones deciding what music is and isn’t offensive." http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/stadium/2742/censorinfo.html#Whatswrong
The author of this site is leading up to an important point. If the government is allowed to fully censor music, whats next? Censorship is definitely a slippery slope. It is easy to see why so many people are afraid of allowing the government to ban certain words and phrases, even offensive and derogatory speech. The public should have the right to decide which music to listen to, and if they prefer to hear music containing harsh language, then it should be their choice to hear it. Even though radio is already censored, the consumer should be able to purchase albums exactly as the artist wrote it, and not a censored version. To be honest, I hate the derogatory and offensive language used in music, especially in rap, but I hate censorship more, and prohibiting the use of certain words in music is definitely censorship.
Sources:
Viacom Article--http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGUjRJoPeHeU
Russel Simmons Article--http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6586787.stm
New York Times Article-- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/arts/music/25hiph.htmlpagewanted=1&_r=1
Fight Censorship Article --http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/stadium/2742/censorinfo.html#Whatswrong
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Is media-focused news coverage causing loss of actual "news"?
Nowadays it seems whenever we turn on the television we are bombarded by shows about celebrities. There are so many programs and even channels devoted to following celebrities and reporting their every move. As a country, we are very concerned with the lives of the rich and famous, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. But when these celebrity reports take up news time that could be used to report important world events such as war and genocide, are we being denied actual "news" in exchange for useless gossip? Is our media-focused news coverage causing a loss of journalistic news?
Author Jake Halpern of the book, "Fame Junkies" believes so. In an article in The Wall Street Journal, Halpern describes how America's obsession with celebrities has become so extreme that the amount of air time for hardcore news stories has suffered because of it. He describes how "in 2004, the nightly news shows on three major networks spent a total of just 26 minutes covering the bloody conflict in Darfur, while they spent roughly 130 minutes on the Martha Stewart scandal."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119146204059048535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It is not only local news that has shown an overwhelming difference in its amount of celebrity coverage and news reporting. Halpern also shows how national news channels, such as CNN, have compromised their reporting of the news when he says, "CNN devoted almost three times
as much coverage to Ms. (Britney) Spears (losing custody of her children) as it did to the war in Iraq... and gave roughly 37 times more coverage to Ms. Spears than it did to the ongoing conflict in Darfur, which the United Nations describes as the world's largest humanitarian crisis." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9401 This shows how news channels are giving important air time to celebrity gossip rather then taking that time to inform the public on issues such as the genocide in Darfur.
How is this acceptable? It has become so easy for the public to accept celebrity stories as news and ignore the mass killings in Darfur. One would think that the war in Iraq would concern the public more then Lindsay Lohan's most recent rehab excursion, but every day that is proved to be untrue. More and more, the news seems to forget about the important events taking place in the world, and focuses its reporting on which actress has had plastic surgery, or which super-couple is divorcing.
Maybe the reason for our lack of concern is because the average American doesn't want to deal with the uncomfortable topics and would rather be entertained instead of informed. If that is the case, then they should watch channels that are created for entertainment. But the people who turn on networks such as CNN and Fox News believe they are receiving the full extent of the news, when in fact, what they are viewing is more like pure entertainment. The main goal of the news is not to entertain, it is to inform, and that includes all of the uncomfortable and depressing aspects of our world. Take the subject of poverty for example. The University of Michigan reported that "one-third of all U.S. residents will experience government-defined poverty within a 13-year period. The poorest age group is children, with more than one in six living in official poverty at any given time." As much as this effects Americans, one would think poverty would be discussed frequently on the news. But in an experiment conducted to see how much the news reported poverty, the results showed that "during the more than three years studied, there were just 58 stories about poverty.....while the network programs dedicated 69 stories to Michael Jackson’s legal woes." In 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit at the same time Jackson's trial was ending, "the networks deemed the pop star’s legal problems twice as newsworthy as the economic plight of tens of millions of poor citizens, running 44 stories on Michael Jackson to 22 for poverty." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3172
Even though important issues like poverty affect so many Americans, our news sources are constantly giving precious airtime to stories about celebrities and pushing back the hard hitting news reports of what is going on around us. The public as a whole is suffering a disservice from the news networks. I think is it wrong for the news to focus so much of its airtime on celebrity updates instead of keeping the public informed on national and global events. People look to the news networks to give them information about current events all over the world, but instead they are withholding this information and choosing to show stories on celebrities instead. Because of the way the networks are purposefully showing sensational stories instead of stories concerning the poverty, war, and genocide affecting the world, I think the integrity of the networks and the news itself has decreased. It is the networks duty to give the public the information and insights as to what important local and global issues are occurring every day, and withholding that information to make room for celebrity gossip is not right. The public has a right to know the news, and they should be able to depend on news networks to provide it, which so far, isn't happening.
Sources:
Author Jake Halpern of the book, "Fame Junkies" believes so. In an article in The Wall Street Journal, Halpern describes how America's obsession with celebrities has become so extreme that the amount of air time for hardcore news stories has suffered because of it. He describes how "in 2004, the nightly news shows on three major networks spent a total of just 26 minutes covering the bloody conflict in Darfur, while they spent roughly 130 minutes on the Martha Stewart scandal."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119146204059048535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It is not only local news that has shown an overwhelming difference in its amount of celebrity coverage and news reporting. Halpern also shows how national news channels, such as CNN, have compromised their reporting of the news when he says, "CNN devoted almost three times
as much coverage to Ms. (Britney) Spears (losing custody of her children) as it did to the war in Iraq... and gave roughly 37 times more coverage to Ms. Spears than it did to the ongoing conflict in Darfur, which the United Nations describes as the world's largest humanitarian crisis." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9401 This shows how news channels are giving important air time to celebrity gossip rather then taking that time to inform the public on issues such as the genocide in Darfur.
How is this acceptable? It has become so easy for the public to accept celebrity stories as news and ignore the mass killings in Darfur. One would think that the war in Iraq would concern the public more then Lindsay Lohan's most recent rehab excursion, but every day that is proved to be untrue. More and more, the news seems to forget about the important events taking place in the world, and focuses its reporting on which actress has had plastic surgery, or which super-couple is divorcing.
Maybe the reason for our lack of concern is because the average American doesn't want to deal with the uncomfortable topics and would rather be entertained instead of informed. If that is the case, then they should watch channels that are created for entertainment. But the people who turn on networks such as CNN and Fox News believe they are receiving the full extent of the news, when in fact, what they are viewing is more like pure entertainment. The main goal of the news is not to entertain, it is to inform, and that includes all of the uncomfortable and depressing aspects of our world. Take the subject of poverty for example. The University of Michigan reported that "one-third of all U.S. residents will experience government-defined poverty within a 13-year period. The poorest age group is children, with more than one in six living in official poverty at any given time." As much as this effects Americans, one would think poverty would be discussed frequently on the news. But in an experiment conducted to see how much the news reported poverty, the results showed that "during the more than three years studied, there were just 58 stories about poverty.....while the network programs dedicated 69 stories to Michael Jackson’s legal woes." In 2005 when Hurricane Katrina hit at the same time Jackson's trial was ending, "the networks deemed the pop star’s legal problems twice as newsworthy as the economic plight of tens of millions of poor citizens, running 44 stories on Michael Jackson to 22 for poverty." http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3172
Even though important issues like poverty affect so many Americans, our news sources are constantly giving precious airtime to stories about celebrities and pushing back the hard hitting news reports of what is going on around us. The public as a whole is suffering a disservice from the news networks. I think is it wrong for the news to focus so much of its airtime on celebrity updates instead of keeping the public informed on national and global events. People look to the news networks to give them information about current events all over the world, but instead they are withholding this information and choosing to show stories on celebrities instead. Because of the way the networks are purposefully showing sensational stories instead of stories concerning the poverty, war, and genocide affecting the world, I think the integrity of the networks and the news itself has decreased. It is the networks duty to give the public the information and insights as to what important local and global issues are occurring every day, and withholding that information to make room for celebrity gossip is not right. The public has a right to know the news, and they should be able to depend on news networks to provide it, which so far, isn't happening.
Sources:
Media Views-Article
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=22&media_view_id=9401 Jake Halpern--Article http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119146204059048535.html?mod=googlenews_wsj The Poor Will Always Be With Us, Just Not On The TV News--Article http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3172
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Should anti-gay article be censored? Should other side be heard?
Once again, here I am posting about another article in a high school newspaper. I can't help it, first amendment rights of high school papers is intriguing to me. But anyway, this particular freedom of speech argument deals with an opinion piece in a Kell High School paper. A student named Thomas Benjamin wrote an editorial on how homosexuality is a product of a "reproductive error" or "unusual upbringing" and so in his opinion, gays and lesbians should not be allowed to marry.
http://www.ajc.com/cobb/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/10/01/kell_1002.html
As one can imagine, this article created a lot of controversy over whether censorship should have been evoked by the principle, Trudie Donovan. According to Donovan, who reviewed the article before it was published, she believes her "job is the safety and security of the school, not censorship," claiming she had no authority to censor the article.
Schools spokesman Jay Dillon brought forth court rulings that "students can express their opinions and ideas publicly, privately, orally and in writing. There may be no interference with that, even if a student's opinion is unpopular," an exception being if the writing contains obscenities.
I happen to agree with both Donovan and Dillon. When it comes to high school journalism, very little content should be censored, especially if the student's idea is controversial. No matter how narrow minded and rude Benjamin's gay bashing article was, his speech was protected under the First Amendment.
So if Benjamin's article is allowed to be printed, does that mean an article opposing his views should also be heard? Should the Kell High School newspaper be forced to print an article arguing the other side of the debate?
This is very similar to the case of the Miami Herald v. Tornillo concerning access rights, in which the Herald printed an article criticizing political candidate Pat Tornillo and his policies. Tornillo saw the article and demanded the Herald give him the opportunity to reply. In Florida, the right of reply gives a "political candidate a right to equal space to answer criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper." When the Herald refused to give Tornillo space to reply, he filed suit, saying the right of reply law was in fact, constitutional. The argument that the right of reply law allows the public access to the "whole story, rather than half of it," did not hold up in the Supreme Court. The case eventually went in favor of the Herald which was not forced to print Tornillo's reply, with the idea that the press is more of a check on government and should not be forced to print something it doesn't want to. If the Miami Herald was not forced to print a reply, should the Kell High school newspaper be forced to?
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0241_ZS.html
http://www.ajc.com/cobb/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/10/01/kell_1002.html
As one can imagine, this article created a lot of controversy over whether censorship should have been evoked by the principle, Trudie Donovan. According to Donovan, who reviewed the article before it was published, she believes her "job is the safety and security of the school, not censorship," claiming she had no authority to censor the article.
Schools spokesman Jay Dillon brought forth court rulings that "students can express their opinions and ideas publicly, privately, orally and in writing. There may be no interference with that, even if a student's opinion is unpopular," an exception being if the writing contains obscenities.
I happen to agree with both Donovan and Dillon. When it comes to high school journalism, very little content should be censored, especially if the student's idea is controversial. No matter how narrow minded and rude Benjamin's gay bashing article was, his speech was protected under the First Amendment.
So if Benjamin's article is allowed to be printed, does that mean an article opposing his views should also be heard? Should the Kell High School newspaper be forced to print an article arguing the other side of the debate?
This is very similar to the case of the Miami Herald v. Tornillo concerning access rights, in which the Herald printed an article criticizing political candidate Pat Tornillo and his policies. Tornillo saw the article and demanded the Herald give him the opportunity to reply. In Florida, the right of reply gives a "political candidate a right to equal space to answer criticism and attacks on his record by a newspaper." When the Herald refused to give Tornillo space to reply, he filed suit, saying the right of reply law was in fact, constitutional. The argument that the right of reply law allows the public access to the "whole story, rather than half of it," did not hold up in the Supreme Court. The case eventually went in favor of the Herald which was not forced to print Tornillo's reply, with the idea that the press is more of a check on government and should not be forced to print something it doesn't want to. If the Miami Herald was not forced to print a reply, should the Kell High school newspaper be forced to?
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0241_ZS.html
That appears to be the opinion of much of the public. For example, according to Peter Tatchell of the Press Gazette, the right of reply should be evoked whenever a personal attack is made in the media. Tatchell says "concern about press intrusion is overshadowing the need for a 'right of reply' to redress inaccurate and inflammatory reporting." Tatchell agrees with the neolibertarian view that the right of reply law is the government's way of furthering the public's knowledge and interest with the freedom to hear both sides of an argument. He says, "Instead of one-sidedly cracking down on intrusive reporting, it is time the PCC also backed a swift, legally enforceable right of reply for the victims of press prejudice and falsehood." http://www.petertatchell.net/media/right%20of%20reply.htm Even the National Union of Journalists is showing support for a bill requiring newspapers to allow right of reply. Jeremy Dear of NUJ says, "People who feel they've been misreported or otherwise unfairly treated in the press find it hard to get the matter put right. Most papers fob people off and resist printing corrections." So for some, forcing the right of reply is the government's way of trying to help further the public's freedom of speech.
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=889
If so many people feel so strongly about enforcing right of reply, should the Kell High newspaper have been forced to provide an opposing view? Maybe the school should have avoided the controversy altogether and pulled the article before the paper went to print. To these suggestions I say absolutely not. What makes freedom of speech so extraordinary is that is allows anyone and everyone to contribute to the marketplace of ideas, especially with controversial views. If every one-sided argument was pulled before publication, there would be only very thin newspapers and news magazines on the shelves. As much as I disagree with Benjamin's message, I completely support his right to say it, and the newspaper's right not to be forced to print a reply against it.
"Censorship in any form is the enemy of creativity, since it cuts off the life blood of creativity: ideas." -Allan Jenkins
Sources:
Article: Gays Slammed in School Newspaper
http://www.ajc.com/cobb/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/10/01/kell_1002.html
Miame Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0241_ZS.html
Tatchell: What About A Right Of Reply? http://www.petertatchell.net/media/right%20of%20reply.htm
Union Support For Right Of Reply http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=889
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)