The Observer, March 2, 2007
Volume XXXIX, Issue 19
Freedom of speech editorial contradictory
Letter to the Editor
To the Editor:
I have a difficult time understanding how you could have written your 2/23/07 editorial and not realized how contradictory it was. Concerning the right to free speech, it was stated that "In this country, we have the right to say whatever we want, whenever we want, but there comes a certain point at which we need to exercise our rights responsibly in order to protect the rights of others."
Could you please reference the article/section/amendment of the constitution that states a person has the right to not be offended? We need to exercise our rights responsibly in order to protect the rights of others? You come off as saying that these people need to be protected from their detractors because they are too weak to stand up for themselves! There is no right granted to anyone to not be offended. If so, I could have had your paper shut down a long time ago. To be sure, the statements that you referenced are ludicrous. Nonetheless, to say that they must silence themselves in order to protect a non-existent right so people don't feel bad is equally as absurd.
Universities are supposed to be places where ideas are freely exchanged and people are allowed to speak their minds without feeling like they might be called out of order for thinking what they think. College campuses should be freer than society at large, not more restrictive. To say that these people crossed the line of freedom of speech is patently ridiculous. They should not be made to shut up because of people like you who are uncomfortable with what they said. You should instead exercise your freedom of speech to prove them wrong. However, your editorial claimed that their statements are against the rules while trying to be a champion of free speech in the same breath.
As wrong as the CCSU paper and Tim Hardaway were, they can say what they said without being told that they need to be muted. You have every right to attack their position, but stop trying to shut up speech which does not conform to your worldview. Fortunately for all of us, there is no obligation anywhere to self-censor. If we are really a diverse campus, the ideas they expressed should be debated, not the admissibility of the statements into the campus dialogue. Diversity is contained in ideas, not color, not sexual orientation, and to try and protect certain groups from being offended is condescending to them.
If your editorial is indicative of what The Observer's editorial staff believes about free speech, I cannot imagine how much content that could actually add to the diversity of this campus has been censored because you do not think it is an acceptable exercise of freedom of speech. If this has happened, shame on you. If you really believe in free speech, then let it be free, not sanitized.
Ryan Schumacher
Undergraduate Student
