|
RB - The use of the "*" or an auditory "beep" negates your argument. It is possible to discuss the use of the word without naming the word itself. Hairs are split. The slippery slope is oiled.
It seems that you are arguing that this became a story because people got offended. If so, that seems to be incredibly self-evident. It was intended to offend. If not, the word wouldn't have been used. Your mythical *they* includes the entirety of the population that is not the editor. Clearly you and I have no problem with the word - we've used it freely in this thread. Your *they* subset, however, does not end with us. *They* have the right to protect themselves from what they think is unwarranted use. While *they* all knows what the word is, it is possible to dicuss it's use without actually using it.
Whether or not this paper is major media smells of a red herring. They publish their paper for students, some of whom are minors and some of whom are most certainly local high schoolers. It is also sold without proof of ID. Either this is media or not, which makes them responsible to the community standards. Like it or not, they must abide by that. The courts have always upheld that test.
No one's speech was reduced here. It was said. Advertisers pulled their money. The paper suffered for it. Exactly where does the First Amendment really come in to play here? No where that I can see.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|