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.)

I will reiterate: Satire is dead.

Because we like to play up petty issues and talk big!

Is fun.

Oh, I use small words and poor grammar.

there's almost no way to hit this softball of a setup without sounding mean, so i'll watch it track into the catchers mitt behind me and say:

i meant apart from that.
beyond that.

Yes, and so is sarcasm.

I don't get it nobody censored him. It was printed.

They knew it would piss people off thats why they executed it in the manner they did. They admittied they wanted to be provocative, I don't know how else one would attack apathy.

School papers are funded with private donations, no big secret. Are people actually saying the businesses are out of line for choosing not to allocate their money sponsorship/money to a paper that prints something they see as unfit? What are you people actually arguing about, what is the real issue? Nothing has happened to the kids as of yet, right(?), thus they said they don't care if they are fired, but they won't resign.

Mountain out of an ant hill.

IDIOTS! Yes, I do feel better. Thank you, rb. :)

Hah.

I bet their MOM goes to college!

and that is one of the biggest piles of shit they ever did. bribery should not be a protected freedom. but perhaps that's a threadjack. so.

i support the right of these kids to print the editorial. i didn't think it was well phrased as it could have been, but still. i think the advertisers have the right to pull out - but it would be nice to see other advertisers pick up their places. regardless, i think that the public school newspaper should stand up for the philosophical / political point it's editorial board put up instead of cowering to advertisers. that's the rub when you make your business so heavily involved in spreading the news and journalistic integrity. it seems the flip side, where the newspaper is 'just another business' is the bullshit we have now...where all news is basically propaganda.

I think you folks are forgetting that I have a constitutional right NOT to hear the phrase if I choose. The news can't broadcast the phrase without altering it somehow to comply with the law.

Decency laws are constitutional, but just barely.

I agree that I'm disappointed that the school didn't stand behind the editor, but I also wonder if they get any editorial approval to start with. Somehow I doubt it. That makes the school's stance less problematic for me since they're treating it more like a stand-alone business.

This isn't about individual rights. This isn't even really about the First Amendment since no one's been arrested or fined. You don't have the right to say whatever you want whenever you want, even here. That's right, the First Amendment doesn't apply to TFP. And you know what, you're all damn glad that your perceived "rights" are "trampled". If they weren't this board would have spam everywhere.

Out in the real world, you can't start screaming "fuck" in a church or shopping mall. If you do, the owners of the property have every right to curtail your little free speech experiment and kick you to the curb. And you could get arrested and convicted of disturbing the peace in some locales.

That said, the editor printed what he wanted to print. He's been neither arrested nor fined. Everything else is a business transaction. Where's the issue?

Some here are asking what is wrong with what happened. He wasn't arrested. He wasn't fined. He wasn't censored, etc. The staff of the paper was punished by having their wages reduced, so one could argue that they were fined.

Jail isn't the only form of punishment there is. If someone is punished for utilizing what is a constitutional right, then what weight does that hold if a business can use money (or, according to the Supreme Court, "free speech") to punish them?

At this point, though, we're at loggerheads since we can't seem to agree on what constitutes free speech and what constitutes violating one's right to free speech.

Good point, JJ, but I'll also add that we need to pin down WHO does the violating.

It seems Americans pull the "Oh, my amendments!" card when they do something silly or foolish.

Justify, justify, justify.

They have the right to say it. They exercised that right. They didn't get arrested for it. The first amendment remains untarnished here.

Their bosses also have the right to stop them from saying it, and the right to fire them if they do say it. Freedom of speech does not mean you get to use someone else's newspaper to say whatever you want without any response from the owner.

I don't see a problem here, save that the student "journalists" are idiots. This ad, if it were a post here, would be deleted and the poster given a stern talking to because it fails to spark even semi-intelligent discussion about the issue that was raised. In fact, the issue that was raised isn't even logical. Bush had nothing to do with the kid getting tased. If you want to write a strongly worded editorial, you should at least try to be semi intelligent about it, lest the rest of the world think you're a vacuous moron.

Now I wanna use a taser on the Bill of Rights.

See if it screams.

"Oh, you're violating me!"

if you take seriously what the writer or the edito said about the piece, it was a simple act of agitprop.
the piece was 4 words long.
the idea of it was to challenge complacency about freedom of speech.
that's all fine--you play the agitprop game, you accept what follows from is, ESPECIALLY if what follows is an exact demonstration of the extent of the problem the agitprop is designed to point out.

so i do think there are idiots involved here, but those idiots are not the editorial staff of the paper: the trail of idiocy begins with the (conservative? coors?) advertiser(s) who "pulled adverts", moves through the public statements of the paper's business manager and then percolates outward to include the whole of conservative "harumph harumph" responses and extends to a number of posts within this thread.

so there are idiots involved here, yes. i just think people are mistaken in who the idiots are.

to wit:

1. the argument that there is some "right" not to hear the word fuck would seem more coherently directed at the major-media shitstorm than at the edito in the csu student newspaper. so blame the conservative set for this one, jazz: the conservative reaction, the taking of the bait. if there is a structuring moment of stupidity in this sea of it, that moment is the conservative responses. *they* are the asshats here. and in terms of getting this lint national exposure, *they*--and not the student who wrote all 4 of those words--are the problem.

so your "right" no to hear the word fuck has been violated by the people who are all "MY GOD! THOSE KIDS USED THE WORD FUCK."
if they had not reacted, you wouldn't know about this trivial story.
so your "right" would not have been violated.


2. crompsin keeps posting stuff that trivialize the notion of freedom of speech and then proceed to claim that referencing freedom of speech in this case is accidental--but that's ridiculous--the point of each of the 4 words was freedom of speech. this is about freedom of speech. that you think the relation strange has to do with you, not the situation.

3. so i dont agree with baraka guru: satire isnt dead. it turns out that satire is not only alive and well, even in kinda disappointingly crude form--but the american right has once again demonstrated that it is a sitting duck for satire because even when you say "THIS IS SATIRE" or "THIS IS A POLITICAL ACTION DIRECTED AT COMPLACENCY REGARDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH" they dont get it. or maybe conservatives only understand satire when it is directed at populations which are marginal, powerless or nearly so--you know, the pj o'rourke school of smug travel writing "i go around the world and all i see are wogs"...or the fine, sophisticated ouevre of ann coulter.....that kinda thing.


what would killl satire is indifference.
with a population of hyper-sensitive control-freak reactionaries out there, satire is alive and well.
if there's a problem with it, that problem is that satire is too easy.


4. to make separations: seaver's positions here seem to me much more thought out than the retro-sponses to the edito itself.
but basically, i am saying the same thing as mojo and shakran, but with a turn insofar as the arguments over where the vacantness lay.

Thank you.

that's the crux for me in everything in life. the fact that you get freedom doesn't absolve one from the consequences and responsibilities that are associated with excercising those freedoms.

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.

except that we continue to perform the relation and in so doing we legitimate the claim that there is a relation.

personally, the freedom to use speech is an actual right: the "freedom" to not hear things is a negative right. i dont see them as being on the same level, so i dont see them in a kind of classic liberal dilemma kinda conflict.
you could redirect this onto a discussion of "community standards" in response, but we'd have to know something about fort collins, the usual "town/gown" conflicts, how they play out, etc. to do it in more than a hand-waving way.

i dont know anything about fort collins co. except that the atomic clock is there and so, apparently, is colorado state.

btw:

i was exploring options for not using that bad word by way of asterisk substitutions. here is a little array:

f***
*u**
**c*
***k

now, if you want to avoid the term but still reference it, i would think that using another letter than the first would be better. but which one? maybe switch em each time. keep the modest reader guessing.

I think the only real failing of the message is that it doesn't instantly and directly bring attention to wrongdoing. It's too ambiguous. "Fuck Bush" really only communicates an emotional response. One would be saying more if they said "Bush is a bad dresser", frankly. I've seen articles called "Bush Illegally Bypasses FISA" or "Bush Admits No WMDs", which clearly outline wrongdoing and allow the reader to have the emotional response. It's better that way. Instead of it seeming like you and your buddies drinking beers and watching CSPAN (which I do), it's more like an authority outlining facts and allowing you to draw your own conclusion.

My own emotional response? Fuck Bush. But, if I'm going to be writing about Bush, it doesn't really do anything but act like a high five between people who can't stand Bush. That's great for your back porch during a BBQ, but in media it lacks substance.

As for the use of an obscenity? I couldn't care less. I do see that as free speech, as it does communicate free opinion on a leader. If someone said something like "Fuck Martin Luther King" I'd be pissed as hell, and they had better back it up, but I shouldn't be able to stop him from saying it. I can tell him to run and hide, though.

But the realization I came to (late) is that the point was not 'Bush' it was the word 'Fuck.' It could have said 'Fuck You' and had the same intent. In fact, now that I think about it, 'Fuck You' would have relayed a much more powerful message from my perspective.

Man, I really shouldn't bite at this.

Aye, i think a large resounding FUCK YOU is what america has earned for itself.

Even so, FUCK BUSH is a very succinct representation of an increasing portion of american political thought. I think the fact that they didn't feel the need to contrive a bullet-point justification of the sentiment suggests a refreshing faith in the intelligence of their readers.

Most people, even if they don't agree, understand at least some of the impetus behind the sentiment of a phrase like "fuck bush". It isn't something that really needs elaboration. You could consider the phrase obscene, but in the context of the actions of the president and administration it references, the obscenity of "Fuck Bush" is really actually very trivial. It's like if somebody standing next to a mass grave pointed towards it and said, "This is fucked up." and the reaction of everyone else was, "Dude, you shouldn't swear, there are kids that might hear you." Never mind that there are kids in the fucking grave.

I would argue that if there were any justice in the world, the obscene member in the phrase "Fuck Bush" wouldn't be the word fuck.

I did both theaters overseas...

I concur.

filtherton: sometimes i love you so very very much.

While a different context, Frank Zappa sums it up in a way I relate to.

Aw geez, pig. You know we're homies.

Absolutely.

And to those that persist in claiming that this is, in fact, a violation of their First Ammendment rights, then why is the following not a violation of these kids' Second Ammendment rights?

Because people are afraid of inanimate objects.

Ever wonder why our infinitely wise forefathers decided to put speech first and guns right after? They could have put firearms much, much father down the priority line.

Their reasoning makes sense to me.

...

This thread kinda goes with the "Fired By Satan" thread... in that it isn't a violation of freedom of speech, just a lack of discretion by a small entity that represents a larger entity.

Personally, I wouldn't fuck Bush.

His daughters on the other hand...

I really don't think this is the state of the law. I'd like to know, I'm not claiming I do. But when you are referring to rights not to hear something over the public airwaves, that is a different animal than print media. And in so far as decency laws are concerned, I *believe* they apply to publications rather than print news sources. And I *think* that our courts have differentiated between classes of speech and afforded a number of tests of constitutionality of suppressing them. Political speech and in particular, print news, has traditionally fallen under the most protected speech.


Which begs the question?
What kind of right is a "right" if methods to suppress are sloughed off as consequences?

How does losing one's job or wages *not* constitute censorship?
Perhaps we should start at "What is censorship?"

I think that if someone wanted to have a "proper" response to this piece it would have been to ignore it or enjoy it. Of course corporations are *fully* within their rights and even may have an expectation to react and pull their ads. They are, after all, responsible to a different party altogether: the consumer.


But what should *not* happen are people making excuses for what shall and shall not formally be considered censorship, when the responses are specifically and solely intended to suppress the speech. Those responses are what I imagine the editorial intended to bring out in order to highlight the ludicrous response of tazering things we don't want to hear (or the people who voice them).

It wasn't brilliant expression by any means, but I don't think it needed to be to test the point they wanted made. They basically took a nonsense word, one loaded with symbolism in this country, and placed it next to the president's name.

What if they had wrote "Hang Bush"?


EDIT: BoR, at first blush that second case *does* appear to violate their 2nd amendment rights. So *I* wouldn't agree to what I think your unspoken premise is. That said, I've already pointed out different classes of speech (eg, political, religious, commercial) have been protected at different levels. So I'd think gun laws (on campus, in courthouses, public spaces) follow the same trend. From my understanding, the Supremes have always balanced what they feel the "value" of the right against the potential "harm" it could produce. So we end up with valid (or at least reasonable?) limitations on gun toting and reasonable limitations on scaring the shit out of people in crowded theaters.

That was my point. Thank you. :D Of course we have limitations. I don't think that too many would argue that a college campus, or a shopping mall, is no place to be carrying around a rifle. Now, the freedom of speech thing does go a little further than just scaring the shit out of people in crowded theaters. Just because you have a right to say something, doesn't mean that I have to provide you with the soapbox upon which to say it.

Look, this kid was, in my best estimation, just looking for attention. So...he got it. I really don't see a point in him doing what he did. But, he did it. So, as with anything else, there may be some consequences. Deal with them.

And, if newspaper boy is so adament, about getting his word out, then let him fund his very own newspaper. Though I doubt that he's going to garner much revenue, if all he does is print "Tase This. Fuck Bush." Don't they teach journalism, in journalism school? Or is it all just sensationalism?
Or, maybe I'm wrong and this kid'll become the next Rupert Murdoch. I'm not holding my breath, though.

if the statements made after the fact are anything more than ex post facto rationalizations, the edito was a political action.
maybe not a very interesting one in terms of content, but one nonetheless.
that's what makes this whole teapot tempest ironic....

The best interpretation of this four line headline headache yet! :thumbsup: