Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
I'm calling bullshit on that, JJ. The objections that I see posted are that there was no attempt to make a point with a subsequent article. One headline, four words. Period. You have jumped in (heh), so explain why you believe those four words in a college paper deserve more respect than we at tfp have given them.
|
I go back to my first point. When exercising a Constitutional right, what justification is necessary? Whose permission do I need? What fallout do I have to deal with? Since when did an editorial department have to justify whatever political speech they make, regardless of what words they use? We may sit and argue that there has always been responsibilities, but that's only when the use of such speech might cause harm to others. How does the word "fuck" harm anyone? It doesn't. We find it distasteful, which is our sole reason for this whole debacle. No one was injured, yet we seem perfectly placated that he is in hot water over it.
Who is the one making the claims that the use of a bad word was harmful? The business manager. The fucking business manager. He's making the decisions? Our freedoms now have price tags? You can say what you want, but if it ends up costing us money, we're putting the kaibash on it? Is that what motivates us? What disappoints me so much about all this is just how easily we seem to nod our heads and say, "Well, he's not going to jail, so his rights weren't violated." I could be wrong, but I believe that's the exact complacency they're trying to reveal. That we will accept this kind of bullshit.
How was using the word "Fuck" gratuitous? Not that you said it was, but that seems to be the consensus. It wasn't gratuitous at all, it was very conscientious and deliberate, designed to make a point. The point being that people don't give a shit enough about their own rights to stand up for them. They were right. We're all sitting here saying they don't deserve our support because of they way they did it. That's exactly why they did it.