Student paper headline ignites US free speech row

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Student paper headline ignites US free speech row | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited

University authorities in Colorado are on Thursday to decide the fate of a student editor who published a huge "F*** Bush" headline. David McSwane, 20, is facing the sack over an incident that has grown from a campus row into a national debate about free speech. The board of student communications will decide at the hearing whether he violated the paper's ethics code that states that "profane and vulgar words are not acceptable for opinion writing".

edited the orignal headline quote, which shows UK press ability to publish profanity

[Praxius]

Ah that's not so bad:



Did it actually say "FUCK BUSH" or "F*** BUSH?" cuz that kinds matters in my opinion.... although slightly.

If he had it * then it'd refer to the point he was trying to make, but making a profane headline in a university newspaper, with all kinds of different opinions and sensitivities, which the university has to cover their arse over.

from what I gather from the limited article, he should be fired. I wouldn't mind him publishing the article, just not the profanity as a headliner with detail, and he should have have the maturity and brains to know that.

It's not his personal newpaper to do as he pleases, and the limitations on what you can put in a University's newpaper depends on the university. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about offense. Not to Bush, but to some readers. If they have no limitations then they could write anything they wanted, including racial and sexist, all for freedom of speech.

Unfortunatly, the world doesn't work that way... and if it's not a government funded institute, you don't have much to complain about.

What's the difference? Ask the people who decide to sue them if they do nothing.

Oh and before anybody tries to trap me into the other topic of the guy getting tasered for freedom of speech..... two different situations.

[another day]

Quote by: Praxius Ah that's not so bad: Did it actually say "FUCK BUSH" or "F*** BUSH?" cuz that kinds matters in my opinion.... although slightly. If he had it * then it'd refer to the point he was trying to make, but making a profane headline in a university newspaper, with all kinds of different opinions and sensitivities, which the university has to cover their arse over. from what I gather from the limited article, he should be fired. I wouldn't mind him publishing the article, just not the profanity as a headliner with detail, and he should have have the maturity and brains to know that. It's not his personal newpaper to do as he pleases, and the limitations on what you can put in a University's newpaper depends on the university. This isn't about freedom of speech, it's about offense. Not to Bush, but to some readers. If they have no limitations then they could write anything they wanted, including racial and sexist, all for freedom of speech. Unfortunatly, the world doesn't work that way... and if it's not a government funded institute, you don't have much to complain about. What's the difference? Ask the people who decide to sue them if they do nothing. Oh and before anybody tries to trap me into the other topic of the guy getting tasered for freedom of speech..... two different situations.

exactly...he works for someone else.

IF he wants to print his own independant paper with the words fuck bush he should be allowed. If he wants to circulate a paper about how jews should be exterminated, he should be allowed. But freedom of speech ends when that person is working under the behest of someone else who owns the paper, then, it is up to that owner to decide.

If we legislate that the owner must allow this, then that is not freedom. It is oppression. it's not about freedom of speech, and it's not about offense. It's about freedom for the university to make their own rules regarding the paper that they put out.

[Thanatos]

These are adults we're talking about. Most of them can walk into an airport newsstand and walk out with a porn magazine complete with graphical demonstrations of the offending verb under discussion. Crap, I got a lecture and a package full of free condoms from university staff on my first day. Protecting the innocence of college students is generally recognized as a lost cause.

Was the paper shoved under dorm doors or something? I could sort of understand if it was somehow forced on students...but otherwise I don't get it.

[donfie]

Another Day has it correct for me.

Everyone has the right to run their organisation in whatever way they see fit within the confines of applicable law.

If we follow this to it's conclusion then I could assert that my comment on the colour of a colleagues skin or the size of a colleagues breasts was my right under freedom of speech.

Whether it actually offends anyone or not is not the issue. The issue is that he knowingly broke the paper's code of ethics so he should be fired just the same as if he broke any other of their policies.

If you break rules then you should face the consequences. If you don't like the rules then move to get them changed or vote with your feet and find somewhere that allows what you want to do.

This isn't about freedom of speech which I fully agree with. Anyone should be able to say whatever they like in a forum that allows it.

Otherwise I could say what I liked in this forum and, when banned, could claim it was my right under freedom of speech.

If all my responses consisted of "F***" + [name] you'd want me banned and would have the rules in place to facilitate that. If I was not banned as it was decided it was my right under freedom of speech, most people would leave.

Isn't it also true that the US is a very letigious society and that there would be a very real danger of someone suing. Thus, organisations have every right to impose rules on their employees or members and grown ups should accept that they should follow those rules.

[tinybear]

"Fuck Bush"? Geez, what kind of newspaper headline is that? Just what do they teach kids in college these days? Maybe they shouldn't punish this kid, but he should be removed as editor of the school newspaper for sure!!

[grandpa]

Quote by: tinybear "Fuck Bush"? Geez, what kind of newspaper headline is that?

One that gets right the point.

Grandpa h.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Thanatos These are adults we're talking about. Most of them can walk into an airport newsstand and walk out with a porn magazine complete with graphical demonstrations of the offending verb under discussion. Crap, I got a lecture and a package full of free condoms from university staff on my first day. Protecting the innocence of college students is generally recognized as a lost cause. Was the paper shoved under dorm doors or something? I could sort of understand if it was somehow forced on students...but otherwise I don't get it.

Yes, they are "adults." Precisely. And as adults training to become professional journalists, they should know what happens to adults in the real world who publish profane headlines against the wishes of the newspaper owners. They don't get a lecture and a box of condoms. They get a pink slip.

[Praxius]

And regardless if people are mature adults there at the University or not.... many have different views and beliefs... and they don't have to be forigners to be so.

Someone could be there to study their proffession like a doctor or some history buff, but that doesn't mean they have to walk the halls of the university passing along offensive articles like "FUCK BUSH" or anything else with profanity that they may find offensive.

Then again, you might have some hard ball Bush supporters who take offense to the article and then want to go and shoot up the school the next day.... who friggin knows now a days?

But the thing is, they want an informative newspaper which makes you think, one would assume..... so if the guy wanted to issue this article on the things that Bush may or may have not done thus far in time, he should have had enough brians to re-word the headline a bit better.

But apparently the guy didn't read over his employment contract or the rules they have applied and therefore should have his ass fired.... possibly make this affect some of his marks while we're at it.... get the message home.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Praxius And regardless if people are mature adults there at the University or not.... many have different views and beliefs... and they don't have to be forigners to be so. Someone could be there to study their proffession like a doctor or some history buff, but that doesn't mean they have to walk the halls of the university passing along offensive articles like "FUCK BUSH" or anything else with profanity that they may find offensive. Then again, you might have some hard ball Bush supporters who take offense to the article and then want to go and shoot up the school the next day.... who friggin knows now a days? But the thing is, they want an informative newspaper which makes you think, one would assume..... so if the guy wanted to issue this article on the things that Bush may or may have not done thus far in time, he should have had enough brians to re-word the headline a bit better. But apparently the guy didn't read over his employment contract or the rules they have applied and therefore should have his ass fired.... possibly make this affect some of his marks while we're at it.... get the message home.

IMHO, there is no right to not be offended. There is in fact a right to free speech, and if you're forced to pay for the offending speech then being offended really doesn't follow. If you really get so angry at viewpoints different from yours that are expressed anywhere near you that you can't get through college then you have much bigger issues to worry about.
have much bigger issues.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Thanatos IMHO, there is no right to not be offended. There is in fact a right to free speech, and if you're forced to pay for the offending speech then being offended really doesn't follow.

I think everyone has the right to criticise anyone for
any reason. To me, that's a matter of logic more than anything else.

Grandpa h.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tinybear "Fuck Bush"? Geez, what kind of newspaper headline is that? Just what do they teach kids in college these days? Maybe they shouldn't punish this kid, but he should be removed as editor of the school newspaper for sure!!

At the very least, the headline was in poor taste. It was certainly unimaginative and more indicative of the extremely dumbed down mentality portrayed in the movie Idiocracy.

[donfie]

Everyone has the right to free speacch, yes, but there are ways to say what you have to say.

Saying that you think Bush is ill-advised, dangerous, or deranged is one thing. Saying he's a f***ing c**t is another. That's not exercising free speach. That's verbal aggression.

Also, no where does it say that the student was binned for criticising Bush. He was binned for using the word "F**k". If his headline had been, "F**king is fun" he would have been similarly dismissed.

This isn't about Bush. It's about the use of the word "F**k"

Also, if people read the whole of the article and not just the quote they would be better able to form an opinion.

In the wake of the row, many advertisers have cancelled tens of thousands of dollars worth of adverts in the Rocky Mountain Collegian, which has been going since 1891 and which pays for itself. There have also been complaints from students, including a petition from the college Republicans calling for Mr McSwane to resign.

The headline, published on September 21, was connected with an incident three days earlier at the University of Florida where a student, Andrew Meyer, refused to give up the microphone when seeking to question senator John Kerry, the former presidential candidate. Police used a Taser on Mr Meyer. Reflecting a wave of public feeling that the police had overreacted, Mr McSwane published an article under the headline "Taser this ... Fuck Bush", even though the president had no involvement in the incident.

The university's president, Larry Penley, said: "While student journalists enjoy the privileges and protections of the first amendment, they must also accept responsibility for the choices they make. Members of a university community ought to be expected to communicate civilly and rationally and to make thoughtful arguments in support of even unpopular viewpoints."

[Praxius]

Quote by: Thanatos IMHO, there is no right to not be offended.

What? Is that a double negative thing? Are we expected to be offended by it or not.... I don't fully understand your comment.

But besides that.... do you see your local newspaper with headlines such as that with swearing in it? I wonder why?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Praxius What? Is that a double negative thing? Are we expected to be offended by it or not.... I don't fully understand your comment. But besides that.... do you see your local newspaper with headlines such as that with swearing in it? I wonder why?

We're here to debate free speech, not to discuss the abominable things I do to the English language.

I meant there's no right to go through life without encountering things that offend you, or more accurately that people have a right to free speech whether its offensive or not.

Note that the OP censored the original article about the headline. There's swearing and then there's swearing for valid reasons. I don't know how to define what is and isn't in poor taste so if I was in charge I'd just let anything go.

[donfie]

The editor said he used that particular word to spark a debate on free speech.

Personally I think he was showing off to impress a girl.

Whatever, if you say that anyone can say anything in any medium owned by anyone, then you have to apply that to all situations.

Would you suggest that a segment on CNN saying that b**t-f**king children is cool was allowable? And if some disgruntled anchorman said that should they be allowed to retain their job without need for apology?

Should newspapers be allowed to use the word n****r instead of black?

Should teachers be allowed to call their kindergardeners c**ts?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: donfie The editor said he used that particular word to spark a debate on free speech.

Looks like it worked. Good for him.

Whatever, if you say that anyone can say anything in any medium owned by anyone, then you have to apply that to all situations.

Sounds good to me.

Would you suggest that a segment on CNN saying that b**t-f**king children is cool was allowable? And if some disgruntled anchorman said that should they be allowed to retain their job without need for apology?

Yes. If people don't like it they won't watch - the market will self-correct if enough people find it distasteful.

Should newspapers be allowed to use the word n****r instead of black?

Same as above. If they want to lose their black readership, go right ahead, but there shouldn't be a penalty, legally or otherwise, for it.

Should teachers be allowed to call their kindergardeners c**ts?

No. A captive audience of children is not analogous to what happened here. This example is a red herring.

Adults should be allowed to say whatever they please and consume any media they find appealing, including that which others might find offensive.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Thanatos We're here to debate free speech, not to discuss the abominable things I do to the English language. I meant there's no right to go through life without encountering things that offend you, or more accurately that people have a right to free speech whether its offensive or not. Note that the OP censored the original article about the headline. There's swearing and then there's swearing for valid reasons. I don't know how to define what is and isn't in poor taste so if I was in charge I'd just let anything go.

Alrighty, I wasn't trying to nit pick what you said, I just didn't understand which side your sentance was supposed to support. Now I do.

But you didn't answer the second question. How come you don't normally see all kinds of swearing in your local newspaper?

[donfie]

Yes. If people don't like it they won't watch - the market will self-correct if enough people find it distasteful.

And how, exactly will the market self correct? They can't get rid of the individuals making the statements so does the organisation just have to shut down completely or wait until it goes bust?

Same as above. If they want to lose their black readership, go right ahead, but there shouldn't be a penalty, legally or otherwise, for it.

But what if the organisation DOESN'T want to lose it's black readership but an INDIVIDUAL who works there does? Your saying that the organisation should have no right to remove the individual no matter their own views.

[xyzer]

The genesis of this journalistic abomination is the faculty advisor at the University, or perhaps the aura of tolerance pervading the institution. It's really not a question of free speech as much as it is a lack of linguistic ability in the editorial, reportorial staff of the news paper. To not have enougfh of a vocabulary to express disdain in a polite, respectful manner is evidence of ignorance. Such language rarely appears in the Mainstream Media...and much criticism of the president does? Is this the way the faculty of a major educational institution instructs its students?
The response by the faculty was too weak! Silence is admission?