Fuck Bush: Colorado State's student paper pushes the free speech button - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

snowy · 09-24-2007, 01:01 PM

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

Quote:

Univ. Paper Takes Heat Over Obscenity

2 hours ago

FORT COLLINS, Colo. (AP) — The editor of the Colorado State University newspaper says he has no plans to resign amid criticism about an obscenity used in an editorial about President Bush.

The four-word editorial, published Friday in the Rocky Mountain Collegian, said in large type, "Taser this. (Expletive) Bush."

J. David McSwane, the Collegian's editor-in-chief and a CSU junior, said the newspaper's governing board may fire him but he won't voluntarily step down.

"I think that'd be an insult to the staff who supported the editorial," McSwane told the Fort Collins Coloradoan in Monday's editions.

The newspaper's business manager has said the operation lost $30,000 in advertising in the hours after the editorial was published, and that the pay of student staffers would be cut 10 percent to compensate.

McSwane said the newspaper's student editors decided to use the obscenity because they believe CSU students are apathetic about their freedom of speech and other rights.

"We thought the best way to illustrate that point was to use our freedoms," he said.

The editors chose not to seek advice from the newspaper's professional advisers to protect them from the controversy they knew the editorial would cause, McSwane said.

"We didn't want any kind of action taken against them by the university," he said.

The Board of Student Communication, which oversees the Collegian and other student media at the university, plans to discuss the editorial when it meets Tuesday night.

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.

Plan9 · 09-24-2007, 01:05 PM

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.

Sultana · 09-24-2007, 01:06 PM

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?

Shauk · 09-24-2007, 01:08 PM

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.

filtherton · 09-24-2007, 01:13 PM

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

tecoyah · 09-24-2007, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

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.

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.

Rekna · 09-24-2007, 01:19 PM

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

Willravel · 09-24-2007, 01:25 PM

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.

Esoteric · 09-24-2007, 01:28 PM

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.

flstf · 09-24-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onesnowyowl

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?

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.

The_Jazz · 09-24-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

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.

Crompsin, this may be the best thing you've ever posted here. In all seriousness, I REALLY, REALLY like this.

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.

Plan9 · 09-24-2007, 01:49 PM

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

Well, you should read more of my stuff.

...

Manners are the best order of social lubrication.

Manners are often defined as acts of discretion.

dc_dux · 09-24-2007, 02:06 PM

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.

Seaver · 09-24-2007, 02:18 PM

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.

Plan9 · 09-24-2007, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

More often than not, the result of editorials like the CSU piece or ads like the MoveOn "General Betrayus" ad is to...

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

mixedmedia · 09-24-2007, 02:38 PM

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.

dc_dux · 09-24-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

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

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

Plan9 · 09-24-2007, 02:52 PM

Yeah. Har-har-har!

Elphaba · 09-24-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

The four-word editorial, published Friday in the Rocky Mountain Collegian, said in large type, "Taser this. (Expletive) Bush."

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.

Plan9 · 09-24-2007, 04:01 PM

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.

Elphaba · 09-24-2007, 04:10 PM

Crompsin, I love the way you think.

JumpinJesus · 09-24-2007, 04:27 PM

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.

mixedmedia · 09-24-2007, 04:37 PM

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.

snowy · 09-24-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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.

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

Seaver · 09-24-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

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.

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?

ubertuber · 09-24-2007, 04:49 PM

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

JumpinJesus · 09-24-2007, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

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 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?

Elphaba · 09-24-2007, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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'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.

Dilbert1234567 · 09-24-2007, 05:30 PM

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

Elphaba · 09-24-2007, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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?

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.

JumpinJesus · 09-24-2007, 05:48 PM

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.

Baraka_Guru · 09-24-2007, 06:02 PM

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

Elphaba · 09-24-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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.

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."

mixedmedia · 09-24-2007, 06:32 PM

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.

Plan9 · 09-24-2007, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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.

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?

...

And to that... I say:

America - FUCK YEAH!

JumpinJesus · 09-24-2007, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

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."

Dammit all to hell!

I get to be as presumptuous as I want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crompsin

Righteous 1st amendment action - GO!

...

But where does it stop?

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.

Seaver · 09-24-2007, 07:19 PM

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.

JumpinJesus · 09-24-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

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.

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

Plan9 · 09-24-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JumpinJesus

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

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

roachboy · 09-24-2007, 07:27 PM

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

Quote:

CSU College Republicans issued a written request Saturday for McSwane to resign his position.

"This is not a free speech issue," the request stated. "(I)t is an issue of journalistic integrity."

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.)

09-24-2007, 01:05 PM	#2 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	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. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

09-24-2007, 01:06 PM	#3 (permalink)
Sultana Falling Angel Location: L.A. L.A. land	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? __________________ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." - Matt Groening My goal? To fulfill my potential.

09-24-2007, 01:49 PM	#12 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	If that is the best thing I've posted here... Well, you should read more of my stuff. ... Manners are the best order of social lubrication. Manners are often defined as acts of discretion. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake." Last edited by Plan9; 09-24-2007 at 01:51 PM..

09-24-2007, 02:06 PM	#13 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	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. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

09-24-2007, 02:18 PM	#14 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	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. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

09-24-2007, 01:08 PM	#4 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	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.

09-24-2007, 01:13 PM	#5 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I don't think it is any more obscene than what passes for political discourse on any of the major cable television networks.

09-24-2007, 01:19 PM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Considering Bush has said "Fuck America" and "Fuck the Constitution" over and over, I don't see a problem with this.

09-24-2007, 01:25 PM	#8 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	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.

09-24-2007, 01:28 PM	#9 (permalink)
Esoteric Tired Location: Florida	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.

09-24-2007, 02:38 PM	#16 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	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. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

09-24-2007, 02:52 PM	#18 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	Yeah. Har-har-har! __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

09-24-2007, 04:01 PM	#20 (permalink)
Plan9 I Confess a Shiver	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. __________________ *Whatever you can carry.* "You should not drink... and bake."

09-24-2007, 04:10 PM	#21 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Crompsin, I love the way you think. __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

09-24-2007, 04:27 PM	#22 (permalink)
JumpinJesus Junkie Location: Chicago	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 can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

09-24-2007, 04:37 PM	#23 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	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. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

09-24-2007, 04:49 PM	#26 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	There's a difference between a public university and a private corporation. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

09-24-2007, 05:30 PM	#29 (permalink)
Dilbert1234567 Devils Cabana Boy Location: Central Coast CA	freedom of speech means he can't be jailed for what he said, he can still have his ass fired for it. __________________ Donate Blood! "Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

09-24-2007, 06:02 PM	#32 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Oh my god. Just when I was getting over the death of irony, here we have it: the death of satire too. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

09-24-2007, 06:32 PM	#34 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	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. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

09-24-2007, 07:19 PM	#37 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	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. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas