Dropping Math: Censor != Censure, OK != Legal
I thought I should clarify a comment attributed to me in a Daily Emerald article about the Insurgent Town Hall forum.
Several Christian students said The Insurgent’s publication was an attack on Christianity that misinformed readers with false ideas.
“It’s not OK to pay people to attack us viciously,” music major Jethro Higgins said. If it’s not already against the law, “it should be,” he said.
Spencer told Higgins it’s OK to make fun of and offend people.
I told Higgins that it was legal to make fun of and offend people under the Constitution. One of the points I wish I had gotten across at the forum is that something can be idiotic, offensive, blasphemous, or whatever other negative you want to call it while still being legal.
The Students of Faith are making a tactical error by asking the University administration and ASUO to censure the Insurgent by forcing them to make an apology since, by law, that is something the two bodies legally cannot do. (Oh, and there’s something which is lost on various people: censure is a different word than censor.) Instead, as I tried to point out at the meeting, Students of Faith should be arguing that noone should have to pay for any sort of publication on campus, whether it be the Insurgent, the Voice, the Commentator, or the Emerald. The current system forces students to sponsor speech which they disagree with and in my opinion, this is a terrible position to be put in. But the bare fact is that this is an all or nothing proposition, and most people on campus seem to prefer the “all” option. And if that’s how it’s going to be, then I’d love to see a Students of Faith publication. Spew can always use more contributors.
