Spring Break
The day after Hurricane Our View
Sean Reed
Issue date: 9/24/07 Section: Opinion
Wow.
Just a few short days after the "Taser this" bomb hit, all Collegian e-mail boxes and voicemails are full with the fallout from Friday's Our View.
Responses have ranged from polite demands that the Editor in Chief be fired to some not so nice suggestions that the parents of the Editorial Board ought to be sodomized for the piece. Every now and again, a friend would pop up to offer some support, too.
I would like to personally congratulate everyone - especially the detractors - for taking their often-unexercised right to free speech for a spin.
This issue has stirred up healthy debate about free speech - and that was the point.
However, I did see some things that I found disheartening.
For one, many, especially those that didn't get the chance to see our front-page free speech article Friday, were confused about the connection between the Florida Taser incident and our president.
There is a simple explanation for this. There is no direct connection between the two.
There is a logical link, however. Both the Andrew Meyers case and actions taken by our president last week involve challenges to our First Amendment rights.
The Editorial Board felt Andrew Meyers' right to free speech was violated when police officers forcibly removed him from the microphone. Kerry invited him to step up to the microphone, he did ask some legitimate questions, and even thought they may have taken a turn for the absurd near the end, he had every right to finish.
While his actions after the police attempted to restrain him showed poor judgment, there was no reason for the officers to have put him in that situation in the first place.
As for President Bush, he recently challenged America's First Amendment rights by proposing an extension on eavesdropping measures for the War on Terror.
If anything challenges the right to freedom of expression, a government permitted to stick a microphone wherever it pleases is certainly it.
Just a few short days after the "Taser this" bomb hit, all Collegian e-mail boxes and voicemails are full with the fallout from Friday's Our View.
Responses have ranged from polite demands that the Editor in Chief be fired to some not so nice suggestions that the parents of the Editorial Board ought to be sodomized for the piece. Every now and again, a friend would pop up to offer some support, too.
I would like to personally congratulate everyone - especially the detractors - for taking their often-unexercised right to free speech for a spin.
This issue has stirred up healthy debate about free speech - and that was the point.
However, I did see some things that I found disheartening.
For one, many, especially those that didn't get the chance to see our front-page free speech article Friday, were confused about the connection between the Florida Taser incident and our president.
There is a simple explanation for this. There is no direct connection between the two.
There is a logical link, however. Both the Andrew Meyers case and actions taken by our president last week involve challenges to our First Amendment rights.
The Editorial Board felt Andrew Meyers' right to free speech was violated when police officers forcibly removed him from the microphone. Kerry invited him to step up to the microphone, he did ask some legitimate questions, and even thought they may have taken a turn for the absurd near the end, he had every right to finish.
While his actions after the police attempted to restrain him showed poor judgment, there was no reason for the officers to have put him in that situation in the first place.
As for President Bush, he recently challenged America's First Amendment rights by proposing an extension on eavesdropping measures for the War on Terror.
If anything challenges the right to freedom of expression, a government permitted to stick a microphone wherever it pleases is certainly it.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 6
Jason Uphoff
posted 9/24/07 @ 4:31 AM MST
Congratulations on generating some discussion. Now grow up and don't throw around the f-bomb just to get attention. You will not win anyone over to your point of view with your "op-ed" and the discussion generated is about your poor judgment and not about whether or not the government is restricting free speech. (Continued…)
Marie
posted 9/24/07 @ 2:22 PM MST
Nice try, though totally illogical. The attempt to connect the tasing of an unstable individual who resisted arrest to the point of assaulting and injuring at least one police officer after he had been asked several times to step away from the microphone to an Bush's attempt to extend the government's ability to listen in on known terrorists' conversations in case they are planning to attempt another attack on American soil is tenuous at best. (Continued…)
Steve Haigh
posted 9/24/07 @ 3:38 PM MST
Oh, come on, Sean. You just said it was childish and stupid to use the F-word. It doesn't matter if "Bush" was the next word or "Clinton." This is not a Republican-Democrat issue, it's about responsibility -- yours. (Continued…)
Donald Hackett
posted 9/24/07 @ 4:50 PM MST
Many people have always called you to question when your right editorials, and they have done it in a mature way, as for the most part you had as well. (Continued…)
Randy Manning
posted 9/24/07 @ 5:30 PM MST
I am alumni and you have no idea how immature and silly your comments are. You live in a bubble where most of your actions have very little consequences, but now come to find out not everybody agrees with the blatant disrespect of an elected U. (Continued…)
Jenna Ellis
posted 9/24/07 @ 7:05 PM MST
While those of us rightfully outraged at the Collegian's immature, disgusting display must resort to little comments and letters to the editor, it's further disgusting that for all McSwane's pompous claims he want to protect everyone's First Amendment right, I don't see him or the Editorial Board printing anything in the paper using half the strength of the F-bomb directed toward them. (Continued…)
Post a Comment