Fuck Bush: Colorado State's student paper pushes the free speech button
 

So, my roommate just got back from visiting his sister at Colorado State, where he saw this story begin to unfold:

The use of an obscenity by a student newspaper raises certain free speech concerns, obviously. My question is: do you personally think that the right to free speech comes with the right to say "Fuck Bush" in a newspaper editorial?

I think so. Protections around free speech extend to protecting speech we don't like and disagree with--and the editors of this paper have the right to print an editorial headline as they see fit. That page is a public forum, and they are members of that forum. Our student newspaper has several disclaimers around the editorial page, warning readers that the opinions expressed on the page are the majority opinion of the editorial board or the opinion of the columnist writing, or the opinion of the guest columnist/editorial board (we often print other schools editorials as a way of showing varying opinions).

I have had to put a lot of thought into freedom of speech lately, and so I'm curious to see how others feel about this issue, especially in how it relates to the Colorado State case.

Foul language is distasteful in the wrong environment.

"Just because you can... doesn't mean you should."

Freedom of speech is fine. Freedom of discretion, too.

Ergh.

Attempts at "shocking" only lead us to be bored with travesty.

No I don't. I think it reduces the article to yellow journalism. That type of phraseology is sensationalism at best. It's unneccessary, and poor writing, and makes the article, paper, and school lose credibility.

Is this a subscription- or fee-based paper, or is it free?

I dunno, i've heard the word "fuck" so many times in so many different contexts that it's lost any shock value, it's part of my vocabulary, so the context of it's usage is all that gets to me now.

the context is fine. honestly though, its a good publicity maneuver. in an ocean of mumblers dissenting over bush, the one yelling FUCK THAT SON OF A BITCH ASSHOLE CUNT WHORE is going to get my attention and if he can somehow embed an intelligent article in that somewhere, he's gotten more exposure than the mumblers "have you seen my stapler? I think bush took it" types.

but, furthermore, I think newspapers tend to want to portray a more "professional" standard, and obscenity is not professional. If any action is taken it should be done so on this premise.

I'd rather save the profane for the internet blogs myself.

I don't think it is any more obscene than what passes for political discourse on any of the major cable television networks.

By attempting to limit the freedom of opinion, and quelling dissent for the leadership...this whole thing flies in the face of what I always thought this coun try stood for.

Considering Bush has said "Fuck America" and "Fuck the Constitution" over and over, I don't see a problem with this.



http://www.newsfrombabylon.com/syste...er.preview.jpg

I'd be fine writing or reading an article entitled "Fuck Bush" so long as it was appropriate for the content. I mean I say it all the time, anyway. I might as well write it down.

I see no problem with it at all. It's a shame that a simple word can cause so much controversy, heh. Had the article been titled "Screw Bush" I doubt it would be getting the same attention.

Yes. I don't think it is a very effective way to communicate though. They come off sounding rather juvenile and probably causes many to discount what is written in the article and others to not read it al all. Kind of like little kids trying to get attention.

Crompsin, this may be the best thing you've ever posted here. In all seriousness, I REALLY, REALLY like this. :thumbsup: The emphasis is mine, but there's a lot to be said for this thought.

You know why we don't see uncut versions of "Full Metal Jacket" on the networks or basic cable? Because we have decency laws in this country. They could have gotten their point across without using a word that the vast majority of parents try in vain to keep their kids from learning and using.

When I was a kid, my mother taught me that polite people don't discuss religion or politics since no good can come of it. She also taught me that being polite was the best way to get what I wanted. I've come to realize that it is possible to discuss both so long as the discussion occurs in a polite way - TFP is responsible for that.

If that is the best thing I've posted here...

:paranoid:

Well, you should read more of my stuff.

...

Manners are the best order of social lubrication.

Manners are often defined as acts of discretion.

More often than not, the result of editorials like the CSU piece or ads like the MoveOn "General Betrayus" ad is to provide the opportunity for the "opposition" to redirect the discussion from one of the substantive issue to one of etiquette and style......although I dont think there was much substance in the CSU editorial.

In any case, they both can use lessons in how to create an effective political message.

I honestly don't understand these people. What Federal Law prohibits them from typing that? They're in College damn it, they should know the difference between local, state, and federal juristiction... as well as private ownership.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can knowingly break rules and not get fired. It does not mean your sponsers do not have the right to stop paying for advertisement. And it does not mean your boss does not have the right to fire you for hurting his business.

This is nothing more than a young idiot trying to get attention and praying he becomes a martyr.

Seems more like a personal attack, really. Just because it rhymes.

Frankly, even though I'm certainly a big fan of the word 'fuck,' I would be turned off by the title at first glance unless I knew the writer and could, by that familiarity, gauge the amount of substance that is going to follow in the article.

Obviously in this instance though there was no substance to follow for, as I read it, there is no article. It just seems kind of trite and presumptuous. What does tasering have to do with Bush? I dunno, just seems like someone trying to be cute.

That really doesn't answer the question, I suppose. But I don't necessarily think it's a school newspaper's responsibility to give voice to this kind of dialogue. If there were something more there to sink one's teeth into as far as supporting material, I would probably feel differently.

I agree its counter-productive....sort of like the continuous Obama-Osama "slip-ups" by Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al.

Yeah. Har-har-har!

The term "fuck" doesn't offend me in a proper context. The intent of this headline offers no context that I can determine other than to be provocative and serves no useful purpose that I can see. Where is the position and supporting argument?

I find the headline personally troubling because it is more fitting of the lowest form of editorial comment that we see today in various media, rather than the higher standards of journalistic thinking that I would expect from a university publication.

The better question is what happens if this erodes the already minimal sense of decency we have left in the media?

Think about it.

"Fuck Your Mom: Hillary Puts Medicare In The Crapper"

Let us act like adults... because we can.

Not say what we can... because we want.

Crompsin, I love the way you think. :)

I have to admit that I was almost certain there would be a far greater level of support for the editorial board than I see. What I see is almost no support for them at all, with the reason being that they used a dirty word to make their point.

I hear a lot of people saying, “Sure, they have the right to say it, but did they need to use such a bad word?” The use of the word wasn’t gratuitous; it was used to make a point – that point being that we’re apathetic about our freedoms and rights. They proved their point.

The funny thing about freedoms – or rights, as our Constitution labels them – is that you don’t have to justify a fucking thing to anybody when exercising them, and the exercising them isn't conditional based upon the tastes of those around you. What does it say about us that we tell them that they’re allowed to exercise their rights, just don’t expect us to support you when you say something we don’t like. If you support rights, you don’t put conditions on them.

I support the right of the editorial board to make this call and publish it. I only wish they had done more with their right to free speech. I certainly don't begrudge them of it, though.

Maybe because I am not apathetic about my freedoms and rights is why it seemed gratuitous and, frankly, a little silly. But you're right in saying that that is a matter of taste.

Hear, hear. JJ, I really appreciated your post. Well said.

No one said they can't say "Fuck Bush." No one said he couldn't pay for pamphlets on his own dime and pass them around saying it. However, when a paper makes money off of advertisements and public money the paper has to answer to those people who feed them money. Therefore, anyone who types on the paper has to answer for what they did.

This isn't a constitutional right situation is what I'm saying. This is a PR aspect that any company fights. A worker at McDonalds, according to your logic, has a right to yell, "N-gger!" at anyone he wants at work without reprocussions. How long do you think he would, or SHOULD work there in reality?

There's a difference between a public university and a private corporation.

There was once a time when I bought into the logic regarding businesses having every right to stop me from saying what I want, or them some how not having to honor the rights outlined in the Constitution, but no more.

Do we now argue that the government can't violate our rights, but businesses can?

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.

freedom of speech means he can't be jailed for what he said, he can still have his ass fired for it.

Ahhh, now I understand. It's personal for you, and your argument as presented is as weak as the four word headline. You've got to do better than that to be taken seriously, as did the school paper.

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.

Oh my god. Just when I was getting over the death of irony, here we have it: the death of satire too.

:expressionless:

Alrighty then. YOU get the point from four words. I, and perhaps some others, didn't. But you assert that you know why "they" did it, and why "we" don't get it. A bit presumptuous, don't you think?

Just for making a "point"... "Fuck you, JJ." :D

I will admit that I didn't catch the full brunt of the statement until JJ clarified it for me. Perhaps it is my kneejerk reaction against 'Fuck Bush' because I think it is trite and overused, which is funny to say.

But now I understand that it was used to make a point in and of itself and not, necessarily, a literal one.

Me's a little slow on the uptake sometimes.

Righteous 1st amendment action - GO!

...

But where does it stop?

...

And why do we always seem to pull the amendment cards out for such superfluous things?

Why not the second amendment? I'm sure THAT'LL win everybody over.

Why do we let our "Constitutional Rights" erode everywhere else but get all up-in-the-face with THE MAN with idle threats and obscene language? :paranoid:

...

And to that... I say:

America - FUCK YEAH!

Dammit all to hell! :D I get to be as presumptuous as I want.


I hear ya. Before you know it, they'll want to be secure in their property and possessions from unwarranted searches and seizures...and then, they'll want the right to bear arms...and then they'll want a right to a trial by jury...

Where does it end, indeed!

But honestly, I get your point.

My point and presumptively (see that, elphaba?) their point would be something like this:

Without google, how many of us can name the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Forget it, even if you say you didn't google it, I won't believe you. Besides, it's rhetorical. I honestly believe we have become too blasé in our defense of our own rights. Part of it is a point that you made regarding the 2nd amendment. We don't get to pick and choose which rights to defend. We either defend them all, or risk losing them all.

Too many people have become too complacent in facing that and doing anything tangible about it.

Since when does it say we have the right to free speach, and the right to avoid all reprocussions from other citizens using their own right to free speach.

Sorry, the Supreme Court ruled that the donation of money is a freedom of speech. This idiot said fuck bush, and the businesses said fuck this kid. Yes, it's a business decision because there is no free lunch. It costs money to print the paper, with expensive machines, ink, computers, etc. If it were funded by government money, it would fall under the no political bias category, and would have lost their public funding because of it. Since it's not, there is no way the paper would have continued to exist had they allowed this kid to print dribble like this.

So what would you rather happen? The paper, and all of the dozens of kids to be fired and refused journalism experience necessary to get a job post-college? How about go all the way Left, relying on donations from MoveOn.org or other items, at which the college itself would lose massive amounts of alumni donations, and thus drag down the entire college?

All because of one idiot kid? Sorry, I have no sympathy.

And now I feel special. It's usually me learning something from you in these threads.

"If you give up freedom for safety... you find yourself with [the Patriot Act.]" - B. Franklin

i dont really see the distinction between crompsin's position in no. 2 and this

http://media.www.collegian.com/media...34-page2.shtml

which was cited in today's edition of the paper.

"journalistic integrity" from the csu republicans appears to mean : if you say fuck bush, this is what you loose.
of course, you are free to say it.
you just arent a journalist anymore.
and this in response to an editorial.


as usual, the problem is not the act itself, but the hysterical response from the self-proclaimed "decency" brigade for which it appears that there is "freedom of speech" so long as you dont say anything they do not like ("freedom of discretion" in another parlance)
similarly with the advertisers who pulled ads because of it. (coors maybe?)

sometimes i wonder just how formal folk are willing to allow freedom of speech to become.

but at the same time, this is a trivial situation: a trivial 4-word editorial in a college newspaper.
for gods sake....
i dont see what the flap is about.
that there would be a brouhaha about a self-evident and openly framed act of agitprop from conservatives and (conservative) advertisers is among the stupidest things i have read of in a long time.
if they had shut the fuck up, the edito would have gone away by saturday morning.

idiots (say it out loud in your finest napoleon dynamite voice. its fun.)