Taser this ... Student editor faces hearing
J. David McSwane, the student editor who approved the infamous "Taser this...F--- Bush" editorial that ran in the Rocky Mountain Collegian, faces an Oct. 4 hearing to determine if he'll keep his job, be disciplined or absolved of wrongdoing, reports Erika Gonzalez.
Professor James Landers, interim president of the communications board, said Wednesday that the governing body would review roughly 300 e-mails and about a dozen letters concerning the editorial. A summary of the complaints was sent to McSwane.Whatever action the board takes, McSwane may appeal the decision to the school's vice president of student affairs within 20 days of receiving the panel's written ruling. The Arvada West High School graduate must attend the hearing, which will be closed to the public.
Staffers of The Collegian, reached Thursday, said -McSwane wasn't making any public statements on the issue. At a packed board hearing Wednesday night, the junior journalism major said he and his editorial board felt their use of the F-word was protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.
"We felt that it was acceptable in this instance," McSwane said.
Rocky columnist Bill Johnson says it would be a shame to dump the kid:
From the fuss and stir he caused, you would have thought he'd cursed Jesus, another word often used when the president's name comes up, but not in the way a lot of his supporters like to think. But it is what will sink McSwane from the editor's chair.Petitions, the university's apologies, national headlines - all embarrassing stuff, and the easiest thing to do in such times is act tough. The board that oversees the Rocky Mountain Collegian decided Thursday to give him a formal disciplinary hearing next week, after which, I suspect they'll can him, while crowing about standards, decency and what have you.
Mike Rosen weighed in with the admonition that the CSU flap is "just another example of childish, left-wing college students playing at being grownup journalists."
Previously:
More than 300 folks showed up last night for a hearing of the Board of Student Communications to debate the future of The Rocky Mountain Collegian's editor, J. David McSwane, who approved an editorial that said, succinctly: 'Taser this ... F--- Bush." The editorial spelled out the forbidden word.
Erika Gonzalez reports:
For some, it was a matter of protecting free speech.For others, it was about punishing the editor of a campus newspaper, who they believed damaged the credibility of Colorado State University nationally when he decided to publish the F-word in the school newspaper.
"Our university will take a hit for the poor choices of one student," said Chelsea Penoyer, chairwoman of the College Republicans at CSU.
Students who worked with the embattled editor - and even his mother - say they're not surprised he's in the spotlight, reports Berny Morson.
Students who have worked with McSwane him as arrogant and eager to make himself the center of attention. Winning a prestigious journalism award shortly after graduating from high school only boosted his ego, the other students said."Everything was about him," said Emily Polak, 20, a junior who was a reporter on the CSU paper.
McSwane is consulting with David Lane, the attorney who is defending fired CU professor Ward Churchill.
Rocky columnist Mike Littwin writes:
The editorial was, I think we can all agree, brief. It was also confusing, sophomoric, obscure and, well, vulgar. It was supposed to be about the Tasering of a University of Florida student during a John Kerry speech - and it was supposed to, well, shock what McSwane has called an apathetic Colorado State University campus.It shocked, all right. It dismayed. It also caused a storm of indignation - not all of it righteous, however. Supposedly shocked advertisers started pulling out of the paper, to the tune of about $50,000. Campus Republicans circulated petitions to have McSwane fired. The talk shows lit up. It was sort of like Ward Churchill - if Ward Churchill light.
Should he lose his job over the editorial? Should student publications be more closely monitored? Do you agree with the premise of the editorial? Should the threatened loss of advertising have any bearing on the decision?
Jay,
Let me ask you, do you think the average response on this blog is thoughtful criticism? I can tell you that on average I did not encounter thoughtful criticism in public school. I will say that in the private university I attended the instruction was better and the attacks on Christianity were far more subdued than they were in the public institutions. If I needed someone to teach me, I would certainly be more inclined to go to a private institution.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on October 1, 2007 05:05 PMWell Hogar...I'm at least glad to hear that you aren't denying your sons an education for fear that their faith may get shaken by some thoughtful criticism.
Posted by jay on October 1, 2007 04:46 PMSo does this CSU story meet the muster as a real story or is it over hyped because of the Murdoch media? I think we are in the age of new yellow journalism. Murdoch resembles William Randolph Hearst to the 'T' and the reasons why we had the FCC are becoming very clear. The propaganda selling as news in the United States is garbage. Bush sold out our media so Murdoch could make a buck and Murdoch creates the news even when there isn’t any. Gary Condit never killed Sandra Levy but Murdoch sure killed Condit’s career.
Posted by 475 days to go on October 1, 2007 03:54 PMJay,
My point was, why should I pay someone to insult me, when I am paying them to teach me. I am not a masochist, but some of the professors were clearly sadists.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on October 1, 2007 03:48 PMSaying you don't want/value an education because you can't stand the criticism of your fairytale-based belief system isn't a "slap down"....it's just silly.
I've heard a lot of rationalizations over the years as to why the far right wingers don't like education...but that has to be the most ridiculous excuse ever.
Silly I tell ya.
Hogar,
Now that was a slap down on college boy jw.
JW,
Here is where you miss the boat. You want to prevent me from engaging in a blogging genre which I enjoy, because you think it makes me sound insane. This blog is not a peer reviewed scientific journal, though there are some who want it to be. Having gone through two years of college I know enough about it to know that it would do nothing for me. I had some true science courses which were very valuable. There were other science classes taught by TAs who were not qualified to shine my shoes let alone pass judgement on my knowledge. The best professors I had were the ones who were working in an industry and were typically adjunct professors. The worst were the ones whose main mission in the class was to attack and ridicule anyone who had any religious belief. While I never attended a top tier school, I encountered the same thing in a private university, a community college and a state university. Many of the professors were fair minded, but few were ideologically neutral. Most were pushing an ideological agenda, though it was more apparent in the humanities than in the math or engineering courses.
As far as the business world requiring a degree, I would say that is true for the most part, but Bill Gates does not have a degree. I don't see that as having been a liability for him.
Failure of schools in a private enterprise model would lead to a reallocation of resources. In the present monopoly government model, the failed schools simply continue to do their damage and get more money to boot. After all, every good Socialist knows that more tax money solves all problems.
Political Science? Don't you think that is the ultimate abuse of the term science. I took Economics 101, but that does not mean that I simply believe everything that someone writes down, teaches or shouts me down with on a blog.
You obviously have spent a great deal of time in the academic ivory towers, do your plans end up in academia, or the real world?
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on October 1, 2007 01:35 PMHogar, You should continue with the "liberal Re-education" your assessment is astute and so true.
Posted by Observer on October 1, 2007 12:40 PM"It is my experience that it is not that simple."
It usually isnt. And you dont sound insane when you put down your ideas in the form you just used. You should stop with the "Liberal Re-education" camps Hogar. You sound like a tool when you use it.
No system is perfect. And your criticizms of the education system are valid. The problem is, you have little recognition for its benefits, and they are many. You dont have GE education done. This means youre lacking a well rounded education. Ive no doubt you are smart in your particular feild, but I see your ignorance about general things all the time. Thats why colleges FORCE people to go through GE. They give a general, well rounded education as a basis for greater understanding built in your junior and senior years, and further if you chose. But EVERYONE needs a well rounded education in general, or you get...well...you. You know alot about the bible, and your chosen feild. Your understanding of societies is inept at best. You would have benefited GREATLY from some psych and sociology classes. Poli sci wouldnt have hurt, either. Econ 101 anyone? And learning how to do research...it would help...ALOT. I believe Ive talked about critical thinking enough in the past, so Ill just leave that alone.
But you dont think they are worth anything...
"So the main reason that I don't have a degree is that it does nothing for me...something that was not going to have a material impact on my profession and my earnings." (I cut out the Ward Churchill blather because its a weak ass argument. ONE GUY. ONE. NOT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM)
This judgement of yours has been made in total ignorance. You dont know that a degree would do nothing for you because you didnt get one. If you had, youd know it does quite a bit more than bump your pay scale.
As for the "Full of Ward Churchills" thats the great thing about college. You can DROP that class. Or, you can write papers that totally disagree with what the Prof's viewpoint is. As long as that dissent is in proper academic form, they dont fail you for it. They do fail you for bad research, invalid hypothesis, illogical conclusions, etc. Is that ALWAYS the case? No. Proffs are people too. You could get failed simply for disagreement. However, if you did good work, you simply take it to the administration. You can, and people have, gotten grades re-evaluated, and even proffs diciplined for that crap. I never had to, but I did get plenty of proffs who noted that they disagreed with my hypotesis. They NEVER failed me for it. They did sometimes point me towards this book or that article outside the curriculum, but it was MY choce to read them.
College isnt about pushing an ideological agenda. Its about teaching kids, mostly, to use their brains and figure things out for themselves. This is why the business world REQUIRES it, and also why your claims that it would have done you no good are, and must be, based in ignorance.
I dont want to go into the competition thing too much. First because colleges do compete. Second because again, creative distruction is fine for business, it sux for educating kids because many get left out. You simply cannot obtain the benefits of a college education without a firm understanding of the basics which are taught in grades 1-12. Its simply not ok to allow competition between schools to decide which kids get the benefit of those basics, and subsequently a greater chance of taking advantage of a college education. Schools failing because they cant compete is not like a business failing. Kids get screwed, and so does the entire society.
JW,
"Why is it only those who are uneducated feel that education is unnecessary, or even a bad thing?"
It is my experience that it is not that simple. There are those who are fully willing to go along with the program to achieve the most in their field. I will repeat that I am not against education. I am against a system where I am treated as inferior, because I got most of my education outside the official system. Until he was caught, Ward Churchill had a higher standing amoung the educations elite of this country than I do. Why? Because he had more degrees. My boss can seal my plans because he is a P.E. but he does not understand what he is sealing, because my particular field does not have a school in this country that provides expertise in my field. So the main reason that I don't have a degree is that it does nothing for me, and I got tired of having to endure the occasional Ward Churchill for something that was not going to have a material impact on my profession and my earnings.
My two oldest are in college and I encourage them to remain. That is because on average, a person with a bachelor's degree will out earn a person without that degree. What I would like to see is a system which does not require you to get your knowledge from a particular institution. I should be allowed to take my P.E. exam without having gone to a particular institution. Anyone should be allowed to take the bar exam without having paid someone to learn.
I rail against the education system primarily because it is a government institution, a monopoly with little competition and little accountability. It is also full of people who remind me very much of the characters in Animal Farm who were more equal than others.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on October 1, 2007 11:33 AMHogar gets an A from me. The frooty moonbats don't even warrant a letter grade.
Posted by on October 1, 2007 10:57 AMHere is my report card on Hogar:
Understanding the importance of Separation between church and state: F-
Common Sense: F
Posted by Obvious on October 1, 2007 10:00 AMHogar, ol' buddy...we keep coming back to the same place on this issue. You believe that public tax dollars should be able to be used for education that includes religious indoctrination.
I respectfully disagree.
No public funds for religious purposes.
Posted by jay on September 30, 2007 10:56 AM"I have no problem with spending on education. I have a problem with government deciding how it is spent. You want Bill Clinton deciding how the money is spent, I want every parent with a minor child and every adult student up to age 22 to decide for themselves which institution wil get their education voucher."
Hehe. Yes well I can see why you want it that way. You think it will promote competition. I disagree that competition in schooling is a good thing. I have no problem with creative destruction in the business world. If a business fails...tough. In the education world, its not so good.
Also, my idea that government needs to control education spending are partially the result of people like you; Want control over your kids education, but consider education "Government Re-education". I think your kids probably got a decent education (did they go to college?) but there are people who are even....more skeptical....of our education system and the inherant value of education in general than you are. Left to their own devices, the whole country gets a bunch of uneducated clods, and we get screwed as a whole in the global economy. You wont agree, and you need not, but I would like you to answer the question I posted earlier;
Why is it only those who are uneducated feel that education is unnecessary, or even a bad thing?
"You want the government to control healthcare, while I want the government that screwed up Katrina to get completely out of healthcare spending and disaster relief and farm aide and building bridges to nowhere."
Yes well, my feelings here are based on research that shows other nations, where the wasteful government runs healthcare, having just as good a health care system and it costs less!
Your feelings are based on partisan 30 second talking points your political icons in the Republican party have given you. Well, that and "Research" where you go digging for stuff that supports your opinion, which isnt research at all. Research is finding out and learning the truth about something. Its not going and finding something that supports what you want and thinking its proof youre right. THAT process is what got us into Iraq thinking we were going to find WMD's. And Hogar, here is how you tell the difference;
If you never find out you are wrong about something when doing research, its not research.
Looks like jay has already dealt with your report card for this administration. I would have loved someone to grade me on that scale in High School! I wouldnt even have gone and Id still pull a B average!
On the flip side, I wouldnt have had the education to get through college, and unlike you, I think that would be a serious bummer.
"I'd give him a C-...simply because even though the 1st recession started on his watch...it was going to happen regardless of his incompetent fiscal polcies."
I think thats pretty generous. His tax cuts were a good idea back then, so he gets an A on that. But then he started a war, went on an uncontrollable spending spree...thats all F. Average it out. One year of A combined with what, 5 or 6 years of F is....an F.
Posted by JW on September 28, 2007 08:00 PM"Tax cuts A-
not killing wacko americans A-
war on terror B+
Supreme court justice appointments B
growing the economy B-"
Your bottom half of the grade card is pretty spot on...but come on man...tax cuts in time of war? D at best. war on terror???? we are less safe and our military is in shambles....F at best. SC justices...I know this is completely based on your faith so...whateva...we're not going to make any headway there. Growing the economy??????? real incomes have declined nearly every year he's been in office!!!! he has the worst jobs record since the depression!!!! More people on welfare, more people uninsured....not one but TWO recessions have started on his watch....and we're the kicker is that we'll have to raise taxes to pay for this mediocre fiscal peformance!!!!!!!! I'd give him a C-...simply because even though the 1st recession started on his watch...it was going to happen regardless of his incompetent fiscal polcies.
Posted by jay on September 28, 2007 04:35 PM478,
I gave him credit for vetoing the stem cell bill.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 28, 2007 04:28 PM“Controlling spending F”
Boy that is a generous grade Hogar.
David McSwane is a genius! I bet most of you morons had no idea that the Collegian existed before he bated the Murdoch controlled media into this story. There is no such thing as bad publicity and national publicity at that! I think it is wonderful how the right wing is so easily manipulated. I see posts on the Collegian’s site with over 900 comments. You toe tapping Republiqueens have been had and not just in the bathroom stall this time. This is one of the best laughs I have had at the reactionary right wings expense for at least a week. You keep getting busted for being perverts and keep overreacting and this should be an interesting and humor filled year. Keep up the good work and remember stupid IS.
Posted by 478 days to go on September 28, 2007 03:44 PMJW,
I have no problem with spending on education. I have a problem with government deciding how it is spent. You want Bill Clinton deciding how the money is spent, I want every parent with a minor child and every adult student up to age 22 to decide for themselves which institution wil get their education voucher.
You want the government to control healthcare, while I want the government that screwed up Katrina to get completely out of healthcare spending and disaster relief and farm aide and building bridges to nowhere.
Here is my report card for Bush.
Tax cuts A-
not killing wacko americans A-
war on terror B+
Supreme court justice appointments B
growing the economy B-
curbing government influence in education D-
Controlling spending F
shrinking government F-
securing the border F-
"In general you want to grow the scope of government"
Thats because you think Im a liberal in all things. Its simply not correct. I am a centrist, and realistically, Im a libertarian.
Ive said several times that I agree with you regarding as little government in our economy as possibe. Where you and I disagree is in how much government involvement we have in our personal lives, and I would argue that it is you who want an expanded role in that area. I want the same amount of government regulation in my private life as I want in our economy, as little as possible. That said, I probably want more government support for education than you do. This isnt because I think big government is a good thing. Its because I dont think we as a people understand how important it is.
Now, those are generalizations. I dont feel it is that simple, but I do not agree that I want the government to grow in general at all.
I think you can go too far in both directions. No government= Rawanda. I dont think any of us are unwilling to pay some taxes to avoid that. Too much government=Communist Russia. Im pretty sure NO American wants that either. Its sort of like you thinking all tax cuts are good. I disagree, but that doesnt mean I think all tax raises are good! It just means I recognize a ballanced budget IS a good thing, and requires either cutting spending (lets face it, when have you ever seen any politician, repub or dem, cut spending over all?) or you have to tax at an appropriate rate to cover that spending...but NO MORE. That could require a tax cut or a tax hike.
You and I disagree about where that middle ground lies.
And of course there are the partisan based emotional ties to a particular party that you have, and I lack. It means you still support a President who has basically been anathema to your stated goals of less government since the day he took office, while totally rejecting his predecessor who's policies were much more a match for what you wanted in that regard. I realize you have all kinds of rationalizations for this, and I dont feel like blasting you for it any more. Suffice to say I feel you do this because you are tied to the Republican party. As such, all Republicans are inately better than all Democrats because they favor fiscal responsibility and limited government. The reality that Clinton was both more fiscally responsible and less inclined to increase the role of the federal government didnt register with you, and never will.
Bill was a Democrat. Bush is a Republican. For you...thats "end of story". Their policies dont matter.
I disagree with you, so Im a liberal, end of story.
Posted by JW on September 28, 2007 02:59 PMJay,
I have ripped into Bush repeatedly for his over spending. It is his second worst fault after his abject abandonment of the border and national sovereignty.
Here is an interesting look at spending. Bush has increased spending on eduction 129% over Clinton. He has also increased spending on Community and Regional Development by 301%.
These are certainly not good developments in my opinion, but I find it amusing that people who support that sort of thing will still criticize Bush for not spending enough in areas like that.
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/upload/bythenumbers.pdf
It is also interesting to note that with the success that Patreaus has be having in Iraq, and the change in heart that Democrats have been having (small as it is) Patreaus may have actually helped Hillary's chances in '08. She can be more hawkish which MAY help her overcome her liablility with regard to national security. It will be interesting to watch.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 28, 2007 02:46 PM"I say that we should shrink government so that the person in the office matters less. Keep as much power and money in the hands of citizens and local government."
This is why it baffles me that you're still a fan of arguably the worst president in history who has grown exponentially the size of gov't and the power of the executive branch.
Baffles me.
Posted by jay on September 28, 2007 02:26 PMJW,
I think you have brought up some good points, but I think that some of your positions don't agree with what you say. In general you want to grow the scope of government, and think that the only problem we have now is the personality occupying the office of President. I say that we should shrink government so that the person in the office matters less. Keep as much power and money in the hands of citizens and local government.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 28, 2007 02:24 PMBrad -- unfortunately, you are wrong in stating that we don't have "absolute freedom of speech." In fact, that is exactly what we have. What we don't have is freedom of stupid speech without consequences. We do have the unique ability to say whatever is on our minds, knowing ahead of time that Congress cannot pass a law to limit that ability. But with freedom comes responsibility. If I stand on the street and call my neighbor a goat-raping, wife-beating thief, there is nothing that can legally be done to stop me. However, there is also nothing to say that I will not be held accountable for saying such things, especially if they are slanderous or libelous or just plain lies.
Posted by Patriot on September 28, 2007 01:39 PM"The second you invoked 'Hitler' as a reasonable comparison in this discussion you lost ALL credibility."
Lack of critical thinking skills Mikey. Take a class.
I didnt say anyone was Hitler. I just said take a look at what he did. Not what he did once he GOT power. What he did to get there. Reasonable Germans went along with it, even though there is NO WAY reasonable Germans would have gone along with it had they known what was going to happen.
If Hitler bothers you so, check out Stalin, or Moussolini. They used the same methods. And of course, thats what the statement was about, the methods ALL of those kind of people used to take power in what were open societies with civil rights laws (yes, even Russia had these, and Stalin had to get around them LEGALLY before he got to become a real psycho). They are very similar, and we can see some of them at work today.
But hey, if the mere mention of Hitler makes you pee your pants, ignore it.
BTW, Its ridiculous to say an entire argument is invalid because it contains a single, emotion evoking word.
Posted by JW on September 28, 2007 01:36 PMFor all of you out there who are still confused by this whole mess... this situation is not at all about free speech. This was an attempt by a juvenile-minded person to express a personal opinion upon a larger audience by abusing his supposed unbiased position as editor. His claim that it was "meant to highlight the importance of free speech" is the same old tired veil that unimaginative loons like him use when they get their hand stuck in the cookie jar...they all want to be able to do and say anything they want without being held accountable by the rest of society in any way.
If this were really an issue of free speech, the debate would be centered around the laws that supposedly prohibit said speech. And for those of you who repeatedly think that he was just stating what's "on everyone's mind" -- I'd like to remind you that there are still some of us more moderate folks out here who are willing to listen to both sides, do our own homework and allow ourselves to be disappointed in some things Bush does, but still honor him as President. He doesn't run this country alone, and he didn't get elected by people sitting at home whining about not having enough government aid in their lives. Grow up.
Oh, and notice that I said all of that without any sophomoric comments about anyone's political party, anyone's sexual orientation, religion or race.
Posted by Patriot on September 28, 2007 01:28 PMJW - The second you invoked 'Hitler' as a reasonable comparison in this discussion you lost ALL credibility. As when anyone who decries that I might be a 'racist' because I do not approve of illegal aliens, when someone plays the "Hitler' card, I have no response. Because it does not deserve one. Have a nice weekend.
Posted by Michael on September 28, 2007 01:06 PM"Michael...while the Dixie Chicks and the Collegiate editorial staff may not share your views...please don't imply that their positions aren't supported by the vast majority of Americans." - jay
Fine jay, let them deal with the loss of revenue that comes from their views and the way they express them. It appears that many people that actually spend money on ads and records disapprove of their 'free speech' and are not afraid to use a time honored left wing tactic of economic boycott to voice that displeasure.
Posted by Michael on September 28, 2007 01:00 PM"I think that our FF put Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights to assure all Americans that they could express themselves openly and freely without fear of reprisal or censorship from their government."
I agree. Now, what would you call a formal condemnation of free speech by our government. I would call that reprisal. And while it does not specifically conflict with the constitution, it is a way in which governments seek to limit political dissent. Hitler didnt just walk in and take over you know. He took power legally, after many moves like this that set the tone, got his populace used to the concept of government intervention in speech. Eventually, it gave him a situation where he was able to subvert German civil liberties totally. Im not saying that will happen here, but with things like this, provided you understand HOW fascism in Germany, Itally, Russia, Chille, etc. happend, it makes one worried at the very lease. So while I do agree that the congress and senate did not break the tenets of the constitution, it is NOT a good precident. And I will say the same thing if they vote to condem Limbaugh for calling out active duty personnel in Iraq "Phony Soldiers".
" I think they were mainly focusing on the political aspect of speech, but it has obviously overflowed into almost all aspects of speech."
You should read more history. They set this up because they understood what it was to fear saying something because you might face government reprisal. It goes BEYOND political speech. And they would NOT support this idiocy by our Congress and Senate, because they had direct experience with it, knew what it does to free speech, and that is why they gave us the rights we got even though they put their lives on the line to do it.
The market is another issue. I dont have a problem with the Times losing advertising dollars, or Moveon.org facing the same. Our GOVERNMENT has no business taking sides on this issue. It is simply not their provence to do so. This "Loophole" they have found (not directly forbidden in the constitution) doesnt change that.
It would seem that the main point here is not the content of the editorial, but in a society where younger generations have been force fed MTV, You-tube, etc. That more importantly is garnering attention using shock value tactics and being the center of attention, rather than actually using intellect to make a valid point in the editorial itself. If some of the referrals in the above article are true, it would seem that this person's agenda all along has been to garner attention to himself regardless of methods. It is sadly the point that if you take a wide overview of media in general in this country, we have reached a point where initial schock value and short term attention are more important than valid factual news and entertainment, i.e.; Reality shows-that are anything but, fluff news-any story from Hollywood, etc. It would seem by the reality around us that society in this country has evolved to this. With every special interest group claiming their exclusivity to the "truth" and solutions for all our problems, we end up with all types of smaller splinter factions that cop the attitude that "if you are not with us, you are against us", and we slowly evolve into anarchy, and then Fundamentalists Facism in response.
Posted by Frustated Vet on September 28, 2007 12:22 PMbrad I see your point about hate speech or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater...but do you really think those examples are relevant when talking about political rhetoric?
Michael...while the Dixie Chicks and the Collegiate editorial staff may not share your views...please don't imply that their positions aren't supported by the vast majority of Americans.
http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm
Posted by jay on September 28, 2007 11:56 AMJW - I think that our FF put Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights to assure all Americans that they could express themselves openly and freely without fear of reprisal or censorship from their government. I think they were mainly focusing on the political aspect of speech, but it has obviously overflowed into almost all aspects of speech.
What I also think is that our FF never intended that their be no consequences to what someone might say or publish under this constitutional protection. I believe that somehow the left (primarily) in America today thinks that they are free to say/publish anything they want without fear of any retaliation from those that oppose their views. This 'retaliation' can come from the marketplace ($50000 in lost ad revenue for the college paper) or from lost album sales (Dixie Chix) or from decreased movie ticket sales (it seems 90% of Hollywood) or from tumbling subscription and ad revenues for the NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost, etc. and from lost viewers like at CNN, NBC, and MSNBC. The market is clearly voicing its opinion in these areas. But as long as govt is not interfering in the dissemination of the speech, there is no wrong or any violation of 'free speech' or 'free press'. Reaction to and condemnation of speech is very much allowed and I would say a form of 'free spech' in its own right. My opinion.
We do not have an absolute freedom of speech where we can say whatever pops into our head at any time to see what type of reaction we can get out of people. At work our freedom of speech is impeded where we have watch what we say to co-workers,cutomers and to the boss. If those who fell that we do have an absolute freedom of speech what would happen if you go to a movie and yelled fire. What would happen if you would use a racist statement toward a black person, an inflammatory state towards a woman. What woud happen to you if it is taken the wrong way. If happened to you would you walk a way or confront the person who was disrespectful toward you or your family. what happens to freedom of speech then.
Posted by brad on September 28, 2007 11:21 AMJMH,
Although we rarely agree, I can say that you are almost always consistent and therefore fair in your responses. Thanks for the humor also. With regard to what words are bad, I have an amusing story. I grew up thinking that my parents did not swear, but I realized later that they swore in their native toungue! There is also a vernacular among many Christians where they substitute words, but the meaning is clear. Fudge, shoot, darn, Gosh Darn, Jimminy Crickets are all aeuphemisms with clear meanings. I avoid them also. I do use the word moron, which is a transliterated word meaning fool, but I try to not over use it.
The one thing that I would note, is that while I understand your comment regarding the use of profanity for emphasis, I think the use has become so common that it losses all value with regard to emphasis.
The one thing I would say is that this should not be national news. It should be an issue between the paper and its advertisers. McSwane has done nothing that deserves this sort of noteriety.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 28, 2007 11:15 AMWe do not have an absolute freedom of speech where we can say whatever pops into our head at any time to see what type of reaction we can get out of people. At work our freedom of speech is impeded where we have watch what we say to co-workers,cutomers and to the boss. If those who fell that we do have an absolute freedom of speech what would happen if you go to a movie and yelled fire. What would happen if you would use a racist statement toward a black person, an inflammatory state towards a woman. What woud happen to you if it is taken the wrong way. If happened to you would you walk a way or confront the person who was disrespectful toward you or your family. what happens to freedom of speech then.
Posted by brad on September 28, 2007 11:10 AMI imagine...like the majority of Americans...the majority of the student body agrees with the editorial staff's displeasure with the President (and Petreaus I might add).
I think the CSU College Republicans are having the same delusions as their grown up counterparts...that they represent the majority of America.
Posted by jay on September 28, 2007 10:54 AMMikey,
Why do you think the founders put free speech in the constitution as a right?
Posted by JW on September 28, 2007 10:40 AM"And again, if they condemned you for buying add space to say "Petraeus is Great!" you wouldnt be taking this stance." - JW
I might not like it (in fact I would detest it) but they are free and within their rights to do so. It would be political suicide to condemn an ad for praising an American general commanding US troops in combat. But hell, if a conservative organization wants to take out the ad and if the Democrats want to TRY and pass a bill condemning it - be my guest. I would pay to watch that JW.
Posted by Michael on September 28, 2007 10:28 AMTo the College Republicans at CSU, you are not the voice of all students at CSU so please stop telling the media you are speaking for the student body. You are speaking for your group, not the University..by Austin
You mean there is more than 300 kids up there? I heard they got 300 signatures and assumed they were speaking for the entire student body.
Posted by just sayin' on September 28, 2007 10:26 AMAustin, I agree with you. The entire editorial board should be FIRED. Let's get started on that.
Posted by Oh Wise One on September 28, 2007 10:24 AMI think what many people are missing here is that this was not just his editorial. It was the staff editorial. If any of you have ever actually read the Collegian you would know that every day it runs a staff editorial. That editorial is always voted on by a 7 member editorial board. The vote on this editorial was 6-1 in favor of writing it. So clearly this is not just David McSwane self promoting at the cost of the paper.
This editorial was published with the hope of sparking a debate on free speech and as a senior at Colorado State i support the paper and Mr. McSwane. They did exactly what they intended on. They opened a public debate over what is and isn't allowed in this society.
To the College Republicans at CSU, you are not the voice of all students at CSU so please stop telling the media you are speaking for the student body. You are speaking for your group, not the University.
I have supported this newspaper since i became a CSU Ram and will continue to support it after i am graduated.
I think what many people are missing here is that this was not just his editorial. It was the staff editorial. If any of you have ever actually read the Collegian you would know that every day it runs a staff editorial. That editorial is always voted on by a 7 member editorial board. The vote on this editorial was 6-1 in favor of writing it. So clearly this is not just David McSwane self promoting at the cost of the paper.
This editorial was published with the hope of sparking a debate on free speech and as a senior at Colorado State i support the paper and Mr. McSwane. They did exactly what they intended on. They opened a public debate over what is and isn't allowed in this society.
To the Colloeg Republicans at CSU, you are not the voice of all students at CSU so please stop telling the media you are speaking for the students. You are speaking for your group, not the University.
I have supported this newspaper since i became a CSU Ram and will continue to support it after i am graduated.
"Not a God damn word about them not being able to condemn it."
Eh, if you say so. Its still a bad step. Its unprecidented as far as I know.
And again, if they condemned you for buying add space to say "Petraeus is Great!" you wouldnt be taking this stance.
Posted by JW on September 28, 2007 10:06 AM"This is called government condemning free speech" - JW
That's right...and guess what? There is NO restriction or constitutional prohibiiton of government at any level from condemning that which they find offensive or out of touch with what they think is right for America. The only restriction that applies to Congress is preventing the exercise of 'free speech' or a 'free press'. Not a God damn word about them not being able to condemn it.
Posted by Michael on September 28, 2007 09:52 AMSigh. Yes Mikey, Im sure you see things that way.
Putting that "Free Speech" into a paper costs money, but its still free speech (or freedom of the press if you like). Just because you have to pay to disseminate it doesnt mean you are now not free to do so.
As for campaign finance laws, who is campaigning? Last I checked, Moveon.org isnt running for a political office. They are an ORGANIZATION. Not a candidate. Their message did not support one candidate over another. There was nothing campaigning about it. Its simply the opininon of those at that organization about a non-elected offical.
"And BTW, condemning the ad makes a political statement - they are politicians if you forgot that. "
It would have been fine for them to say they condemned the add. By making it a formalized vote in the Senate and Congress they went too far. This is called government condemning free speech. You may feel its ok because you disagree with what moveon said...but that just makes you ignorant of what freedom means. If you are free to buy an add saying Petraeus is Awesome (which you are), then in order to have freedom, other Americans need to have the ability to buy adds saying what THEY want, even if it disagrees with YOU. If you bought that add saying Petraeus rules, would you find it acceptable to be formally condemned by our government? I think NOT.
"It does not prevent or forbid them from doing it, but it makes them pay the political price for being so far out of touch with the American people on supporting the troops"
Well, saying something about a single General does not require that you stop supporting the troops as a whole. Typical emotional, illogical argument here. Additionally, paying the political price should not include formal government condemnation of free speech. Sorry.
" - which I thought the left claimed they did far better than the right?"
Im pretty sure the Democrats have backed that up. So far they have tried to bring them home (failed due to Republican obstruction) and tried to force the administration to give troops time off equal to service time (again, obstructed by Republicans). You could argue that both those support the troops (I dont think you can argue that forcing them to get time off after having their deployment repeatedly extended is anything BUT supporting the troops).
Anyway Mikey, you can call me a "Liberal" all you want. I get attacked by those who actually are on the right here all the time. If you go to www.crooksandliars.com you can see what the "Left" actually is. They attack me for being a "wingnut" when I blog there.
Im centrist. I dont have your partisan loyalties, or the partisan loyalties you will find at crooks. I look at policy, and I couldnt give a CRAP about who pushes it. If its good policy, Ill support it.
Unfortunately, for the last 7 years, weve gotten NOTHING but failed policy and overspending and fascist shifts from the Republicans. I cant support that.
BTW, where is your condemnation of Rush for calling the troops "Phoney Soldiers" if they want to end the war. They are serving. I think they are entitled to their opinions as much (and more) than anyone else. Dont you support them? Or do you only support troops that agree with you?
Michael, Pataeus willfully opened himself up to political attack when he elevated politics over the well being of our soldiers.
I'm with JW...where is all this outrage over Rush's assertion that any troops in Iraq who dare to agree with the majority of Americans that withdrawal or redeployment are the most responsible options are "phony soldiers".
I smell some hypocrisy in the air.
Posted by jay on September 28, 2007 09:26 AM"That said, agree or disagree with Moveon, it SUCKS that our government has now taken to formally condemning free speech. WTF is going on America?" - JW
The Move.On ad was NOT free speech. It cost about $65000 and should have cost over $100000. The NYTImes has already admitted to breaking all manner of campaign finance and funding laws and regs on that one. Attacking a US Army General in command of US troops in the field in combat IS NOT and never will be the same as political hit ads directed at a POLITICIAN running for public office. The fact that you make this comparison proves my point about mondo left-wing world. They are NOT the same thing. And BTW, condemning the ad makes a political statement - they are politicians if you forgot that. It forces the leftist Dems to take a stand on whether they support the sentiment and ideology of Move.On. It does not prevent or forbid them from doing it, but it makes them pay the political price for being so far out of touch with the American people on supporting the troops - which I thought the left claimed they did far better than the right?
Posted by Michael on September 28, 2007 09:16 AM"The left never ceases to amaze me in the area of trying to draw conclusions and comparisons between things that are not even remotely connected - unless you are in mondo left-wing world."
Easy there chumpsky. The only people doing what you describe are idiots. Guess what...there are idiots on BOTH SIDES. Being an Idiot is NOT the sole provence of the left.
Need proof? Look at the Moveon add. Who got all crazy about that? Wingnuts and some Loony Libs. Go check the voting rolls in the senate and congress for condemning the add. Yea, more wingnut Republicans, but many Dems voted for it as well.
And why? They didnt condemn the add depicting Max Cleland (who lost half his body fighting in viet nam) with Osama Bin Ladden. Seems to me thats quite a bit worse. Who got all mad about the Swiftboating of Kerry? That was worse too.
And now we have Rush Limbaugh calling any troops speaking out against the war "Phoney Troops". Who is mad about that?
Bottom line, idiots say idiotic things, and other idiots get bent about it. Those who hypocritically bash one instance while condoning another are even worse. Use your brain, and you dont have to get all ticked. You just say "well, that moron has the right to say that stuff. Good thing Ive got the right to ignore it for the useless crap it is."
That said, agree or disagree with Moveon, it SUCKS that our government has now taken to formally condemning free speech. WTF is going on America?
I am a moderate Republican and while I was affended that an editor would allow language of that kind to be published, I think it was within his rights to do so. He also must then be willing to deal with backlash. He has the right of free speech, but advertisers have the right to pull out buisness. While I defend his right to say what he wants, I also defend the right of the advertisers to pull out if they do not want to be associated with the paper. All people should have the right to say what they want, but they must understand that they then must deal with the concequences that follow. Weither they are positive or negative.
Posted by Mike on September 28, 2007 08:24 AMDoes anyone else see the weak and pathetic argument/comparison being made by some on the left that a college newspaper printing a vulgar curse word on the front page of its paper for public consumption and to get attention and noteriety for its editor is the same thing as VP Cheney using that same word/expression in a semi- private format and towards one person?
The left never ceases to amaze me in the area of trying to draw conclusions and comparisons between things that are not even remotely connected - unless you are in mondo left-wing world.
I am outraged because of all the outrage
Posted by Novak on September 28, 2007 07:36 AMI really don't care that McSwane was expressing his freedom of speech and everything, but he definitely should have thought through all the consequences. We're getting letters from all over the country now about how CSU students COLLECTIVELY are liberals or low or whatever, and basically, I am offended by the generalizations. McSwane made a selfish move in a periodical that reflects general CSU opinion; he should have confirmed that it was indeed the general CSU opinion. I don't want to be known as a radical liberal because I went to school where the guy said F--- Bush.
Posted by Laura on September 27, 2007 07:02 PMGertie-
So if he put “f*** N-word” on the cover, would the editor still “have done his job” as you suggest? That, surely, would have placed it on an international stage. You can’t argue that it is ok when you agree with the sentiment (which, although it lacks any real thought to it, I do agree with) but then condemn it when you don’t.
The fact that the paper was free does not mean it is “free speech”.
The editor did his job, he got a free paper that was seldom read on World News. If advertisers want to pull out that is their choice, but a poor one. Historically advertisers could pull out if they disagreed with an article, whether it be about abortion or stem-cell research. If loosing money is the issue, what about all the money that will come in from donations from those that have a different point of view. Classic case of shooting the messenger. Nobody lost here people. Its a FREE paper.
Posted by Gertie on September 27, 2007 04:03 PMHis name is McSwine for the vulgarity that is without any sense or meaning but to be vulgar. Why is it that college students like McSwine do not understand the difference between intelligence and a little education. They immediately feel they have acquired the former upon a little of the latter.
Yes he should be fired. If there was a purpose he never articulated it but made reference to fuzzy headed thought about freedom of speech and lack of concern for something he thought important.
If McSwine is worth the $50,000 in cancellations I will be surprised. His freedom of speech is not worth that much I am certain and lets hope the supervisors consider that while they squirm trying to justify his firing. If he wants to talk dirty do it on his web site but spare the public his moronic thinking.
Posted by R Jones on September 27, 2007 03:56 PMUncommon Sense,
I agree with what you are saying to a degree, but I was just trying to point out had the political target been a Dem, I'm sure the current critics would be the supporters and vice virsa. What really made this news wasn't the bad word per se, it was the target that got people's attention.
And Hogar, while I almost never agree with anything you say, I will give some concessions to some of your points.
One, Bush shouldn't have been the target for this piece (and I never defend that moron). He had no part in the "taser incident". Kerry made himself look like a real wuss and HE should have been called out for that.
Two, I believe you are right (let me say that slow again to make sure I am not smoking too much bud... Hogar... you ... are... right... haha... just kidding), the whole Cheney telling Leahy to F*ck himself shouldn't have been news and the people who acted offended, really weren't. But it was an opportunity for some to show Cheney in a certain unfavorable light (not like he needs the help. Being an evil android and all). But I feel the same thing is going on now, just directed in the other direction of the political scale. If this were "F*CK Kerry or Hillary Clinton", I'm betting most on your side of this debate wouldn't be upset at all.
My whole point is this isn't about a bad word (who decided what words are bad anyway?) but to score political points on both sides. And I find the fake outrage sickening really. With all that is going on in the world, is an adult saying "F*ck" really worth all this press?
Personally, if someone is an adult and is truely "offended" by a bad word, then I say they are exactly the kind of person that needs to be offended! Though I do respect those who wish not to use this language themselves or don't want it used in front of children.
Hogar I will argue with this point though. You state that you "find that it is simply a crutch for those who cannot express themselves without using it." I disagree. I believe that some profanity is helpful. It conveys frustration, anger, happiness, passion, etc. in ways that "nice" language can't sometimes... sort of like using a exclamation point at the end of a written sentence. Just my opinion though...
Posted by JMH on September 27, 2007 03:06 PM"I was referring to a single practice, that off attacking Conservatives like Cheney for using profanity against Leahy, when it is exceedingly obvious that those same people have no concern for the use of profanity by those they share ideological views. Someone who does not use profanity can certainly call someone out who makes an issue of it while not practicing it, but if you are foul mouthed yourself, you are disqualified with regard to criticizing another person in their use of it.'
I understand that Hogar. That is the case THIS TIME. But you do this in general, because you do have ego-centric moral views, and cannot tell the difference between those like yourself judging politicians on morals, and those on the left judging them based on policy. BTW, I saw you laugh when that noname bozo was posting all that stuff Hillary supposedly said as the First Lady. I didnt see you getting mad that noone put out a book about the cussing of say, Barbara Bush.
BTW,
Why are you not up in arms about the Republican hypocrisy visa vis the moveon.org add?
"CLINTON: Oh yeah. That’s right. “I don’t have to deal with Iraq. I don’t have to tell anybody what I’m going to do. Everything we do in Iraq is obviously right because they said this about Petraeus,” as if it was the only issue in the whole wide world. Come on, these Republicans were all upset about Petraeus-this was one newspaper ad-these are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia with Max Cleland, who lost half his body in Vietnam, in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That’s what Republicans do. And the person that rode into the Senate on that ad was there voting to condemn the Democrats over the Petraeus ad. I mean, these are the people that funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The President appointed one of the principal funders of the Swift Boat ads to be an ambassador, but they’re really about the Petraeus one. It’s okay to question John Kerry’s patriotism on the blatantly dishonest claims by people that didn’t know what they are talking about. So it was just bait and switch. It was “Oh, thank goodness, I can take this little word here and ignore what we’ve done in Iraq and what we’re gonna do and the outrageous way that we’re gained political power by smearing John Kerry.”
Now, dont go attacking Clinton just because hes Clinton. He's right here, whether he got a BJ out of wedlock or doesnt matter.
Where were all you Right Wing Moralists when Anne Coulter called John Edwards a "faggot"?
Or when Ted Nugent said that Obama should suck on the business end of a shot gun?
We on the left will hold our guys accountable when you on the right hold yours.
Posted by R on September 27, 2007 02:43 PMAin't it fun living in a country with no adults?
We can do whatever we want! No more bedtime, we can say bad words anytime we want, we can act up 24/7 and nobody stops us!
This is great! Chaos is blast!
Posted by truthy on September 27, 2007 02:20 PMEven trying to offer MediaMatters as a credible source of information is laughable.
Posted by Boulder
It was a transcript from his show.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 02:14 PMI was talking about your ego-centric moral views skewing your logic regarding "the Left" and "Democrats", leading you to call them hypocritical.
Posted by JW on September 27, 2007 01:14 PM
I was referring to a single practice, that off attacking Conservatives like Cheney for using profanity against Leahy, when it is exceedingly obvious that those same people have no concern for the use of profanity by those they share ideological views. Someone who does not use profanity can certainly call someone out who makes an issue of it while not practicing it, but if you are foul mouthed yourself, you are disqualified with regard to criticizing another person in their use of it.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 27, 2007 02:08 PM> boycott anyone who advertises on KOA
> http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200709260003
RE: the link you posted... Dan Caplis is an OPINION journalist, not a reporter. He's entitled to make any wild claim he wants. Just as Media Matters are a partisan organization and can make any wild claims they want - and they make plenty of wild claims.
Media Matters was founded by David Brock, author of "The Republican Noise Machine: Right-wing media and how it corrupts democracy". It's funded by the DemocracyAlliance.org, which in turn is supported by such non-partisan individuals as George Soros, Norman Lear, Rob Reiner, Tim Gill and Albert Yates.
Even trying to offer MediaMatters as a credible source of information is laughable.
I wasnt talking about that Hogar. I really dont care about that.
I was talking about your ego-centric moral views skewing your logic regarding "the Left" and "Democrats", leading you to call them hypocritical.
Posted by JW on September 27, 2007 01:14 PMJW,
Show me where Cheney has made public statements about people not using profanity.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 27, 2007 01:06 PM"Because the left has no standards, and resents anyone who does and will NEVER pass up an opportunity to criticize anyone on the right for doing something the left not only does, but champions."
Im surprised you havent figured this one out yet Hogar. This is simply a case of you missing the logic.
The left does not criticize the Right for doing things the Left champions. They criticize the Right for doing things the Right says they morally object to, and do not do. IE; They dont criticize those on the Right for being GAY, they criticize those on the Right for being HYPOCRITES when its found out they are GAY, and have been speaking out and legislating against gays.
There is a difference between that, and what you are saying. In your illogical beliefs, the Left champions Gays if they are from the left, and criticize them if they are Gay and on the Right.
Again, just a mistake in your logic.
Posted by JW on September 27, 2007 11:47 AMJMH,
I think you need to look at context and relevance. Let me start out by saying that I abhor profanity in any context, and find that it is simply a crutch for those who cannot express themselves without using it.
That said, I recognize that I am in an exceedingly small and growing smaller minority in that regard. Why was the comment that Cheney made to Leahy news? Because the left has no standards, and resents anyone who does and will NEVER pass up an opportunity to criticize anyone on the right for doing something the left not only does, but champions. I find that to be hypocritical, because they pretend that they care about it, only when they catch someone on the right not living up to a standard that almost no one lives up to.
Liz brought up an article where they quoted Bush using the profanity. Does anyone believe that reporter would report all the profanity they here in an interview with someone on the left of the political spectrum? Does anyone believe that every occurence of profanity uttered by Hillary has been dutifully reported in the press?
McSwane was simply trying to attack Bush for no reason whatsoever and somehow tie him into an event run by Kerry. So not only did Bush not belong in a headline about tasering, but the expletive had no relevance other than to make McSwane feel better about his power to do harm with his pen. McSwane had no right to use a paper with a long and proud tradition for his own purposes. If it had been a family owned and run business, then he like Pinch a loaf Sulzberger would be perfectly within his rights to trash the family rag to his hearts content.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 27, 2007 10:55 AMJMH-
Yes, he got publicity because of mentioning Bush after the F-bomb. The policy which gives the board the right to fire him doesn’t care about the Bush part, it cares about the f-bomb. So, he makes headlines by putting Bush in the headline, but he gets fired for using the F-bomb. When I said that is what got him in trouble, I mean the loss of his job, not the public reaction (which you are right, is driven by bush being the object).
Still, this debate is not, and never has been about free speech. As I have said, it is a question of if he violated a pretty clear policy where he worked, which he did. The government has not intervened, and he is still free to start his own paper and print whatever he likes (except things like advocating the violent overthrow of the government and violating libel laws). He has the right to free speech. He does NOT however, have the right to hijack someone else’s paper and not play by their rules. An employer does not lose the ability to regulate a code of conduct simply because they are a newspaper. If he’d be fired at any other workplace for saying that in a staff meeting, then why would a newspaper have to oblige it?
If the fact that “people are talking about this” somehow proves that it really is about free speech, then why not do something that would have generated even more publicity? He could have printed a swastika. He could have substituted any of the following for Bush in his editorial: Hispanics (or any racial epithet for that group), Jewish people (or any racial epithet for that group), Islam, Christ, God, and, of course, the N word. Any of these would have generated FAR more “debate” than this did.
Publicity does not equal debate. The paper was not his, and therefore his speech was not “free”. Just as any employer in the country can enforce a code of conduct, so can a newspaper. His defense, that he wanted to spark a debate and exercise his first amendment rights is laughable on its face. I agree with the “sentiment” of his “editorial”, and if the government were moving to shut it down, I would be first in line to support him. But if the editorial board wants to can him for violating policy, that is fully their prerogative. Irresponsible acts usually have consequences. He is about to find that out.
"And, for those who always are looking for a violation of rights, he didn’t get in trouble because of the reference to Bush, he got in trouble for using an F-bomb in an editorial" - Uncommon Sense
I have to disagree with you here and agree with liz. I think it was becasue the F-Bomb was directed at Bush that this whole thing became a big deal. I'm not buying the critics argument that the real problem is using profanity. I mean all you have to do is watch Goodfellas and just about any movie that is a bit seedy and you will hear "Fuck" about 3 times in the first 5 minutes. If this was truely about profanity, the conservatives would have been crying about thier virgin ears hurting when Cheney told Leahy to "F*ck himself" or when it was dropped on a few of the other instances that people have already brought up. But not a peep...
The real problem was it was directed at "their" guy. If the headline said "FUCK KERRY" I strongly believe we would be having conservatives talking about free speech and some progressives saying it is hate speech, etc.
Posted by JMH on September 27, 2007 10:27 AMLiz, Sarah, Cybill or whoever you are,
If you cannot see the difference between quoting someone who uses profanity, (which I do not support in any way and in any forum), and plastering it in a gratuitous headline then perhaps you should look for another line of work. Does McSwane claim to be a journalist, or is he open and honest about the fact that he is really only interested in getting his own opinions read? I have found that a growing number of left leaning "journalists" do not have the same honesty of even a Bill O'Reilly who makes it very clear that he is not a journalist and is simply giving his opinion of world events. Bill O'Reilly is very clear about his desire to influence peoples opinions, while the left tries to hide their agenda under the imprimatur of "journalism." Dan Rather was unmasked in this regard, and so many more need to have that same sort of outing.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 27, 2007 10:16 AMAs a college student Liz, you and your fellow bonehead students should be ashamed that you still dont get that Free Speech guarentees that the goverment will not retaliate against you. You have a right to be fired for saying stupid shit like that. And if it was FUCK DEMOCRATS, he would have been fired with no debate. Try telling your boss to fuck off and let us know how that goes over for you, and let us know how the free speech argument there works as well.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 10:15 AMhttp://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200709260003
boycott anyone who advertises on KOA
Posted by on September 27, 2007 09:19 AM
That's funny anon! The article (from George Soros funded mediamaters) cites KHOW yet you say boycott KOA advertisers. You are the perfect cruton.
Posted by B on September 27, 2007 10:15 AMAs a CSU student, member for student media (not with the collegian), and as a person who atteneded last nights hearing...I heard excellent arguments from both sides of the debate.
I went into the meeting thinking that McSwane should not be fired and that has changed.
On a purely financial basis he should be fired because his mistake will affect not only the collegian but all of csu student media. The rest of us work very hard and its sucks that we have to suffer because of him.
With that being said, Pam Jackson a techincal journalism professor spoke last night in defence of McSwane saying that the debate was not about profanity but about political agendas. And I agree with her completely.
Had it been F*** School there wouldn't have been so much attention on McSwane.
McSwane accomplished what he set out to do which was start a dialoge about free speech and although he should have handled it differently it was bold of him to do.
Additionally a student came to his defence citing an interview with President Bush when he was governor in which he used the F word 3 times in the first paragraph of the interview. The student stated that why should we hold McSwane to higher standards then the president?
As I said though...I wish McSwane would give his fellow workers at CTV, KCSU, College Avenue and the Collegian an apology.
Posted by Liz on September 27, 2007 09:50 AMAs a CSU student, member for student media (not with the collegian), and as a person who atteneded last nights hearing...I heard excellent arguments from both sides of the debate.
I went into the meeting thinking that McSwane should not be fired and that has changed.
On a purely financial basis he should be fired because his mistake will affect not only the collegian but all of csu student media. The rest of us work very hard and its sucks that we have to suffer because of him.
With that being said, Pam Jackson a techincal journalism professor spoke last night in defence of McSwane saying that the debate was not about profanity but about political agendas. And I agree with her completely.
Had it been F*** School there wouldn't have been so much attention on McSwane.
McSwane accomplished what he set out to do which was start a dialoge about free speech and although he should have handled it differently it was bold of him to do.
Additionally a student came to his defence citing an interview with President Bush when he was governor in which he used the F word 3 times in the first paragraph of the interview. The student stated that why should we hold McSwane to higher standards then the president?
As I said though...I wish McSwane would give his fellow workers at CTV, KCSU, College Avenue and the Collegian an apology.
Posted by Sarah on September 27, 2007 09:48 AMI already do.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 09:22 AMhttp://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200709260003
boycott anyone who advertises on KOA
Posted by on September 27, 2007 09:19 AMjw, ZZZZZZZZZZZ
Posted by on September 27, 2007 09:07 AMAnyone see the Republican who put Max Cleland in an add with Osama Bin Ladden just voted for the amendment denouncing the Moveon.org add?
That is hypocrisy.
Posted by JW on September 27, 2007 08:57 AMLiberals, continuing to prove themselves as the inmates running the asylum
Posted by on September 27, 2007 08:42 AMOn his radio show, Caplis said that the leader from Iraq was the same as the Democrats. Why isn't there a boycott of advertisers on KOA? I mean there is a large population of Democrats and this idiot is basically saying they are the enemy.
Posted by curious on September 27, 2007 08:40 AM"Do I smell a small chink in your conservative armor?"
Colbert mocks Conservatives by pretending to be one while taking Fascist positions. I will admit that no one that I have seen ever comes close to pulling the same thing on the liberals, but I give the old college try.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 26, 2007 10:08 AM“What's the alternative to getting people's attention this way? Oh, wait, we tried that in the 1960s and it eventually worked. How many thousands of young people in the streets will it take this time?”
So you are saying this is ok because you are too lazy to organize a protest? Pretty sad. (And I am not defending Bush, who I think history will rank as one of the worst presidents of all time, just attacking the idea that this editorial was the only alternative)
For those still struggling with the concept of free speech, it means that the government cannot stifle your ability to find some venue to speak your mind. It does not, however, give you the right to takeover any forum you want and say whatever you want. Whoever owns the forum can regulate it however they see fit.
The government did not intervene is this case. They did not shut down the paper. He is not under arrest. They have not threatened him with any government action. The paper (which is not McSwane’s) has a policy for editorial content. He violated that policy. They can do whatever they choose.
By definition, yes, the editorial board policy is a form of censorship. But most forms of public media have their own forms of mild censorship to prevent chaos and promote some manner of civility. The forum we are using right now can remove any posts it finds obscene, or any it deems as spam. That is censorship. Radio stations bleep out explatives and have the 7 second delay. TV stations prevent nudity, and some language from being used on certain channels at certain times. Web host can refuse to provide services to web sites promoting pornography or hate groups. The list goes on. However, in most cases, these are not censorship of ideas (i.e. “you cannot criticize the president” etc.), but rather setting a bottom limit on the language used to express your idea.
And, for those who always are looking for a violation of rights, he didn’t get in trouble because of the reference to Bush, he got in trouble for using an F-bomb in an editorial (which, by the way, is supposed to represent the view of the paper itself). Insert any name after the f-bomb and he is still in violation of the policy.
The sad thing is that he cost other people at the paper their jobs, regardless of whether they agreed with his point or not. Pretty selfish way to make his “point”.
So true Tom, so true.
Posted by Ben on September 26, 2007 09:05 AMIt is amusing that from the liberal side, when gutter copy is printed bashing Bush et al, is "brave, edgy, fearless." but it's "racist, blankaphobic, intolerant" if coming from the right. Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", a real bomb, got those same words of "edgy and fearless". What a sham. I keep waiting for Scorsese's follow on, "The last temptation of Muhammed." Never gonna happen. That would require large balls of which Martin is lacking.
Posted by Tom Perkins on September 26, 2007 12:29 AMIt is amusing that from the liberal side, when gutter copy is printed bashing Bush et al, is "brave, edgy, fearless." but it's "racist, blankaphobic, intolerant" if coming from the right. Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ", a real bomb, got those same words of "edgy and fearless". What a sham. I keep waiting for Scorsese's follow on, "The last temptation of Muhammed." Never gonna happen. That would require large testicles of which Martin is lacking.
Posted by Tom Perkins on September 26, 2007 12:28 AMI say that only because it was painfully obvious that Bush did not. I mean once he realized he was the butt of the jokes. Watching Bush’s demeanor during the Colbert speech was one of the funniest things I have seen in the past few years.
Posted by 481 days to go on September 25, 2007 04:38 PM“Colbertesque sarcasm” Do I smell a small chink in your conservative armor? Surely you jest that you are part of the Nation? Hopefully you do get the joke.
Posted by 481 days to go on September 25, 2007 04:34 PM"Why did you say “looks like hate speech to me” if you support it? "
It was Colbertesque sarcasm. Too many have a hypocritical view when it comes to freedom of speech. They want to control what their adversaries are allowed to say, while protecting their own speech. What the McSwanes of the world need to be aware of is that people are not bound by the restrictions on government. Advertisers and subscribers have no restriction with regard to how they can hold "free speechers" accountable. You can say what you want but you can't force others to support your ideas.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 25, 2007 03:38 PMHogar,
Why did you say “looks like hate speech to me” if you support it? I don’t see a previous post with that moniker? Well good for you if you think free speech should always be protected even when it is some Republiqueer (this is funny on many levels) you like.
Tom3,
I love the term, I will use it again. This is like calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud Ahmadinequeer. That is great and just like Mahmoud the Republiqueers will deny that this “phenomenon” happens in their party. The most disturbing part about Mahmoud and Republiqueers is that their values are so similar.
Posted by 481 days to go on September 25, 2007 03:16 PMI heard the College Repuke spokesman is a real flamer with a lisping voice. Typical Republiqueer. They hate themselves.
One of these College Republiqueers was quoted as saying "its about pride". Yeah, GAY pride, you closet case gay-bashers.
I am going to stay out of the mens rooms at CSU. Too many toe-tapping Repukes.
This is a mild comment to describe the feelings that soooo many patriotic Americans have toward GWB. Profane? Yes. Necessary? Yes again. Bush ignores the American people and the Senate Republicans block every attempt to stop the war, as well as health care for children and dozens of other bills that would pass except for the cloture vote that requires 60 votes to pass anything. What's the alternative to getting people's attention this way? Oh, wait, we tried that in the 1960s and it eventually worked. How many thousands of young people in the streets will it take this time?
Posted by This is mild! on September 25, 2007 02:40 PMJim Bell,
Great post... I agree 100%.
I said this earlier (though admittingly, not a classy), the "F-Bomb" is sometimes the best word to sum up our anger & frustration with what this man has done to our country.
Posted by JMH on September 25, 2007 02:21 PM481,
This is one area where I and the ACLU actually agree. They are also against hate speech laws. I have no problem with McSwanes right to speech, but I also support the rights of advertisers to support what they agree with and the right of school administrators to regulate the the message of school papers that use the name of the school.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231.html
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 25, 2007 01:55 PMHogar,
Hate speech is directed at a group and based on prejudices. This speech is specific and based on real experience. The two are not related. I know you are in the jack boot don’t question the president club so I expect your same level of allegiance and respect when Hillary is president. Or are you unpatriotic or something? By the way did you and Shaggy have a good old foot tapping time at DIA this weekend?
Posted by 481 days to go on September 25, 2007 01:33 PMTo me, the meaning behind the f-statement is obvious. It reminds me of the outrage felt by many when Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia recently. Many students and faculty who listened to him were simply at a loss for words at this dictator's “brazenly provocative statements” (Columbia U. President comments, 2007), and his unashamed minimizing of the horrible suffering and inhumanity that was the holocaust.
Similarly to the reaction to Ahmadineja, there is a sense of such disbelief and outrage at what the Bush administration has done to our country since 9/11 that many Americans are simply at a loss for words to express themselves. When a person is at such a loss for words (as with an acute, and intensely painful physical or emotional experience), this is often the time when the person will reflexively resort to simple vulgarities (e.g., "F**k Bush"). To me, David McSwane's statement is evidence of his human nature. His otherwise vulgar statement says that he, like many Americans, is absolutely furious and probably utterly mentally exhausted by the constant insults to, among other things, the integrity of our Constitution, the rights and liberties of the American people, and the respect and admiration American once commanded abroad.
I applaud David McSwane for having the courage to communicate what amounts to the struggle between the outrage in his human heart, and his logical mind struggling to make sense of it. Sometimes, the most important messages are not in the words themselves, but in the emotions the words, and their usage, connote.
Jim Bell
Savannah, GA, USA
To me, the meaning behind the f-statement is obvious. It reminds me of the outrage felt by many when Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia recently. Many students and faculty who listened to him were simply at a loss for words at this dictator's “brazenly provocative statements” (Columbia U. President comments, 2007), and his unashamed minimizing of the horrible suffering and inhumanity that was the holocaust.
Similarly to the reaction to Ahmadineja, there is a sense of such disbelief and outrage at what the Bush administration has done to our country since 9/11 that many Americans are simply at a loss for words to express themselves. When a person is at such a loss for words (as with an acute, and intensely painful physical or emotional experience), this is often the time when the person will reflexively resort to simple vulgarities (e.g., "F**k Bush"). To me, David McSwane's statement is evidence of his human nature. His otherwise vulgar statement says that he, like many Americans, is absolutely furious and probably utterly mentally exhausted by the constant insults to, among other things, the integrity of our Constitution, the rights and liberties of the American people, and the respect and admiration American once commanded abroad.
I applaud David McSwane for having the courage to communicate what amounts to the struggle between the outrage in his human heart, and his logical mind struggling to make sense of it. Sometimes, the most important messages are not in the words themselves, but in the emotions the words, and their usage, connote.
Jim Bell
Savannah, GA, USA
9:57 AM,
Thank your for pointing this out. I absolutely abhor it when the wingers (left or right) whimper "free speech" when the government had nothing to do with the squelching, or lack there of. Your analogy of "talking" to your boss is priceless.
Komrade AM 760,
I'll take unregulated capitalism any day of the week over your "scientific" socialism. Socialism stifles innovation and productivity.
Scott
Would I hire him in my newsroom? Not a chance. Not because he's an inarticulate freak. Not because his vocabulary seems woefully limited. Not because he's apparently incapable of original thought. Not because he's a heckler who prefers to stand at the back of the crowd and shout profanity instead of leading a crowd to a positive conclusion. Not because he's heckling Bush (I'd feel the same if it was Hillary or Obama.) Not because he showed disrespect for his publisher and his community. Not because he can't seem to surrender his knee-jerk politics to the greater purpose of writing wisdom.
But because he seems to have no ability to step back from his narcissism and say something that's worth the price of ink and dead trees. This masturbatory little punk put himself first, not his readers.
I won't consume any more of your bandwidth. I blogged more fully about his at Under The News
Posted by Ron Franscell on September 25, 2007 11:06 AMFree speech only protects you from Goverment retaliation you dolts. YOu can and most likely will be held responsible for this sort of free speech. Go tell you boss to fuck off and see how that works out for you, then try to claim Free Speech and see how far you get. Idiots
Posted by on September 25, 2007 09:57 AML.R.C.- So your definition of 'free speech' is publishing FUCK in a newspaper. hmmm. The problem isn't free speech, it's your morals.
The kid McSwane wanted some attention and he got it. Now he has to pay the bill for his free speech.
FIRE HIS FUCKING ASS.
Looks like Hate Speech to me>
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 25, 2007 09:46 AMWhy should he be reprimanded, do we really have free speech, if we are reprimanded for asserting it? He is only saying what most of us think, and I was a Republican. BUSH is a four letter word, and should be added to the other repertoire of four letter words. The F Bush headline is not the problem, the freedoms this administration has taken from us is the abomination.
Posted by L.R.C. on September 25, 2007 09:34 AMThe Collegian's editorial staff painfully called attention to how significant a failure Colorado State University is when compared to their peer institutions. US News ranks Colorado State University as the worst (tied for number 124 of 124) of national major universities. This noteriety should greatly enhance the resume potential of everyone graduating from CSU within the next few years. Nice job.
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php
Posted by G. Baldwin on September 24, 2007 09:07 PMTo hell with this punk wanna-be. In a few months, he'll be thinking how he screwed up & why he can't get a decent job. Fire his ass & God bless Pres. Bush.
Posted by CHGRBILL on September 24, 2007 06:23 PMDid I miss something?
LOL
FUCK McSWANE!
I just love a lesson in free speech from a jerk like this! He sets up an Army Recruiter trying to give a "loser" a chance. All CSU grads, all CSU students, all Colorado residents need a lesson in what "free speech" means? McSwine Wash!
Posted by Bob Steinle on September 24, 2007 05:26 PMVery classy and foryunate!!
Posted by on September 24, 2007 04:56 PMhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_re_us/blackwater_probe
Here's a good example of unregulated capitalism at its worst. How about some free speech about war profiterring by this adminstration.
Posted by am 760 on September 24, 2007 04:55 PMAll,
I just read on Foxnews.com that the paper's business manager claims that they lost $30,000 in advertising revenue in hours after the editorial was published. It seems that good ol' Capitalism will take care of the "issue". You can say whatever you want, but I do not have to pay for it.
Scott
Posted by Scott on September 24, 2007 04:35 PMFor once Shaggy, you and I agree.
The paper can set any policy it wants to regarding editorial content. It did, and he failed to meet it. They can do whatever they want with him.
They didn’t say he couldn’t write a statement criticizing Bush, or anyone else. They simply said he couldn’t use profane language to do it.
Klenneth,
Another genius.
hb, Still no sense of decency, unless it fits your agenda. You need to study your history better instead of making it up as you go
Posted by Barking Chihuahua on September 24, 2007 02:10 PMKlenneth,
Another genius.
hb, Still no sense of decency, unless it fits your agenda. You need to study your history better instead of making it up as you go
Posted by on September 24, 2007 01:45 PMThe writer was just printing what many of us think.
Posted by KIenneth R.Roddy on September 24, 2007 01:34 PMAre you saying that demanding a minimal level of public courtesy and rational argument is an unwarranted demand for obedience?
Posted by Kevin Jones on September 24, 2007 01:00 PM
Not at all. I'm saying that the conservative mind set, making mountains out of mole hills and mole hills out mountains as fits their purpose, is not a solution.
This is a perfect story for cranky old rednecks to spill their venom. Go ahead. Have a field day. And help out my little buddy, the barking chihuahua at 1255.
This has absolutley nothing to do about free speech. It has to do with private policies.
If my private policy for hiring someone is that employees are to refrain from calling customers names. Failure to do so will result in their firing.
Whether they are protected by law does not apply to this case.
"Among the board's policies is a specific reference to profane and vulgar words. It states that such words should "not be used in news accounts or letters to the editor unless they are considered by the editor-in-chief to be essential to readers' understanding of the situation."
"Profane and vulgar words are not acceptable for opinion writing," the policy also states.
Really,
Don't you ultra-liberal moonbats have sense of decency?
"I think the future will be better than the old fuddy-duddys who want obedience"
Are you saying that demanding a minimal level of public courtesy and rational argument is an unwarranted demand for obedience?
Posted by Kevin Jones on September 24, 2007 01:00 PMjay,
Full o' poop as ever.
Posted by Cruton on September 24, 2007 12:59 PMWhile I might be inclined to say the editorial headline among friends, I'm not an Editor.
The title is just not very creative. McSwain shouldn't be thrown out of school for printing and distributing the words. He should be punished for being stupid, immature, and boring. Spice it up a little! How about this one:
Osama ass-rapes Bush.
Equally infantile, but profoundly more graphic.
ok, maybe there's a reason I'm not an Editor.
Posted by DRather on September 24, 2007 12:59 PMhb,
You fail to observe the obvious. You waste precious space on the blogs stating the obvious. Your long winded and blowing hot air. That's the point.
Posted by Anon on September 24, 2007 12:55 PMOh Wise One, if you went to college, or read history, you would know that the press historically has been biased. The problem today is that we have corporate owned papers and media that dominate particular markets. Asking the press not to be biased is like telling someone not to write with their right hand. My thoughts are that the internet will give more opportunities for divergent points of view unless KJ is right about our youth becoming soulless consumers, perpetually tuned in to the consumer channel. Personally, I meet a lot of bright kids. I think the future will be better than the old fuddy-duddys who want obedience fear.
Anonymous poster, LOL. Do you really think the old will out live the young? Perhaps you fail to observe the obvious.
Posted by history buff on September 24, 2007 12:52 PMIt was obviously meant to make a point and cause some controversy...and accomplished those goals quite well.
Were there more articulate ways of getting that done? Sure
Would they have been as effective at getting all the local wingnuts to start throwing out ignorant generalizations for our amusement? I think not.
Posted by jay on September 24, 2007 12:49 PM"True as it may be, the headline is vulgar, classless and unfortunate." - Ben
Ben, may I ask you a question? How can a statement like 'F#@* Bush' be true or untrue? It makes no claim. It makes no assertion. It is simply a crude and vulgar declaration I guess exhorting people to have sex with The President??? Hell if I know what it means. But how can it be 'true' in any sense of that word?
Posted by Michael on September 24, 2007 12:44 PMHB,
You should check out "The End of America" by Naomi Wolf. She takes historical examples from fascist regimes in Italy, Germany, Russia, Checz., Chille, and China and builds a "Playbook" for taking free, open societies into closed fascist ones. And she compares them with America today. Its really scary stuff.
And no, I dont think "Rational Americans" would say we live in a fascist state. However, I wonder when "Rational Germans" circa ww2 would have said they lived in that kind of state. You could debate that till you were blue in the face, and I think the only universally acceptable answer would be, "When it was too late".
The Military Commissions Act of 06 was a BIG deal. Putting Americans in navy briggs for 6 months without charges or trail or access to an attorney or even presentment of evidence is a BIG deal, and it has happened.
Stuff like this:
"The publicity seeking student had a hate-Bush agenda and if he wrote a story about the CSU football team, it would likely have been introduced by the very same sleasy headline. In short, he abused his position and behaved like a irresponsible teenaged jerk. He cheapened CSU."
Comes straight out of Goebbel's playbook. I know Hank didnt come up with it by reading Goebbels, so ask yourself, "Where did he get this?"
Posted by JW on September 24, 2007 12:43 PMWhere was this degenerate Nimf raised? Perhaps in a dysfunctional pig-swill? Is this a sample of future journalism hiding behind the first ammendment, as it spirals down to a new level? I can't think that the all liberal New York Times would stoop to such a low level of journalism. This young man needs to be taught a lesson by our society and our university that there are principals of etiquette in journalism. Our university is doing a disservice to our young people, and our nation if they can't do better.
Posted by Max N. Goodwin on September 24, 2007 12:42 PMHb,
Of course I don't believe any of that. Well coming from you anyway.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 12:38 PMOf course he should lose his job. Freedoms are not unlimited and without constraints, they all come with responsibilities and limits. Even high school kids know that you can't scream "fire" in a crowded threatre.
Having said that, I still can't get his "shock" headline in connection with the John Kerry presentation and John Kerry event. If the CSU student practiced good journalism, then the reader would be able to logically connect the headline with the major content of the story. Since Bush wasn't even there and didn't give the order to taser the student (that was Kerry's job), I detect more than just a little liberal moonbat brain damage here.
The publicity seeking student had a hate-Bush agenda and if he wrote a story about the CSU football team, it would likely have been introduced by the very same sleasy headline. In short, he abused his position and behaved like a irresponsible teenaged jerk. He cheapened CSU.
More poof that K-12 isn't working.
Posted by Hank on September 24, 2007 12:37 PMOne thing young Mr. McSwayne did, he exposed himself as a liberal/progressive/democrat(ic) stooge. He can never say that he is an impartial editor as most 'journalists' of MainStream Media claim however laughably it is today.
The press can no longer fool the public, they are biased. Some to the right, but most to the wrong (left).
So, 1224? You don't think the world is changing? You don't think the young will survive the old? You don't think the young will have to find their own way in the world? Do you think my Grandmother's recipe for egg salad should be passed on to my children?
Posted by history buff on September 24, 2007 12:30 PMhb,
Don't try to change the subject. You just got blasted.
Kevin, you make wrong inferences. No one is advocating hatred of the old ways. But not giving young people the freedom to think (and make mistakes) is wrong.
I strongly advocate a study of history and culture. Right now I'm reading Team of Rivals, the Doris Goodwin Kearns book about the Lincoln cabinet. If you are a student of the Civil War, much of it is stuff you have already read and know, but the book gives a lot of insight into Lincoln's political genius and character, and is a testament to why Lincoln is our greatest president.
Posted by history buff on September 24, 2007 12:19 PM"American ingenuity depends upon new thinking for a changing world."
Posted by history buff on September 24, 2007 11:30 AM
HB,
Do you think that McSwanes headline represents new thinking?
Fortunately the advertisers may introduce some "new thinking" into the operation of this rag.
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/CSUZONE01/709220352/1002/rss
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 24, 2007 12:14 PMWe are the only thing standing between the American people and all of you bowing to Mecca ! Let us invade your privacy, imprision people without charges and steal elections, it is for your own good...
but please stop saying the F-word. It is making us all tear up and it is hurting our feelings. Mommy..! The libs said a bad word, make them stop! How can defend America if we keep hearing these filthy words? Sniff...Sniff...
"The young have to learn to think for themselves in a world that they make for themselves. The old fuddy-duddys who want to tell them what to think are plain wrong, and their policy will be bad for America because they are asking the young not to think, but to obey."
If the young ever "think for themselves", they'll see this for the empty cant that it is.
Hatred of the old ways is an advertiser's tactic striving to sell people new things they don't really need. Self-restraint is inimical to consumerism.
Anti-traditionalism also rationalizes the mobility of the professional class, since any respect for tradition undermines the vagrant nature of their lives and souls.
Posted by Kevin Jones on September 24, 2007 12:06 PMHe shouldn't make up stories about the military killing civilians. He should report on the current story of the Blackwater war contractor and Bush donor that is killing civilians and how it is protected from Iraqi criminal justice and the military code. A nice piece of profiteering for the Republicans who see the Iraq war as a cash cow and use the pretext of terrorism to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayer.
Posted by history buff on September 24, 2007 12:03 PMLet's not confuse 1st Amendment rights with this situation, OK? There was no government restraint of speech and there will be no government punishment of speech. There may be consequences for this particular speech, based not in government law or regulation but simply in the terms of this editor's private employment contract.
As for the kid who got tased, he was resisting lawful attempts to remove him from a forum that he was disrupting. Nobody tased him because he asked awkward questions. He was simply being an ass about it.
Posted by David Hakala on September 24, 2007 12:02 PMFree speech isn't free. McSwane got his speech now the bill is due. He should resign or be fired.
What will he do next for his last 5 minutes of fame? Make up fake National Guard memo's to try and influence an election? How about faking a news story about the military killing civillians? Maybe he can photoshop in some extra smoke into an AFP pic?
WHAT? Those have already been done? I'm sure the attention HO will find some way to get attention.
I stand behind this editor 100%.
This is a free speech issue. The Supremes have ruled the F word is free speech. Too bad this chat room program censors it.
There have been cases of people being pulled over for "F Bush" bumperstickers, including one in Denver. Courts have thrown these all out.
The only problem with "F Bush" is Chimpy LIKES getting it up the bum. Like most Repukes, he's a closet bottom boy.
Posted by Tom3 on September 24, 2007 11:49 AM"Why wasn't the right outraged when Dick Cheney, the vice-president of the US told Pat Leahy, a US Congressman to "F____ yourself" during an argument in 2004, in the senate, during a photo shoot?"
There was plenty of condemnation from conservatives. The trouble was, the party hacks who dominate the "conservative" punditry didn't care.
As for the CSU fellow: this inarticulate pissant is a discredit to anti-Bush criticism. Rather than start a constructive debate about the obvious failures of the administration, he's started a debate about obscenity laws and the baseness of his character.
He also reinforces the belief that the left is full of crude and boorish slobs with no sense of self-restraint. Leftist decency would be far more potent than leftist vulgarity, but the left is too dominated by piqued adolescents for upright leaders to control them.
Posted by Kevin Jones on September 24, 2007 11:48 AMJMH's liberal stupidity is simply amazing, and a great representation of the nutcase base that is the liberal party.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 11:46 AMSeems the righties are just upset that this isn't just another FoxNews style "fluff" piece about Bush that is usually put out by the "liberal media"...
McSwane I applaud you !!! About time someone didn't pull any punches with this administration. The only problem now is that McSwane can expect his phones to be tapped, his mail sorted through, & maybe he will be put on some "no fly list" because we all know, if you don't blindly follow Bush, you are supporting "terrorists".
Posted by JMH on September 24, 2007 11:33 AMTrue as it may be, the headline is vulgar, classless and unfortunate.
Posted by Ben on September 24, 2007 11:31 AM"taxpayers should have a say in what happens on campuses "
Agreed, as a taxpayer, I believe students must learn how to think. The know nothings who don't like public education should stop trying to tear this country down by making it into a land of weak minded Munchkins. Do they think they are God? Do they want to make college students in their own image?
The young have their own experiences which they will carry into a rapidly changing world. The young will survive the old, that is as true as the earth revolves around the sun. The young have to learn to think for themselves in a world that they make for themselves. The old fuddy-duddys who want to tell them what to think are plain wrong, and their policy will be bad for America because they are asking the young not to think, but to obey. It would be better to set an example than to be a common scold.
American ingenuity depends upon new thinking for a changing world.
Posted by history buff on September 24, 2007 11:30 AMCouldn't have picked a more complete and accurate description of what more than 70% of this country feels in regard to Bush. Thanks for publishing what most of us don't have the guts to say in open air.
Posted by bm on September 24, 2007 11:25 AMOne point that has been missed is that it was probably one of the most accurate and to the point editorials ever written about Bush
Posted by It's True on September 24, 2007 11:15 AMWhere was this degenerate Nimf raised? Perhaps in a dysfunctional pig-swill? Is this a sample of future journalism hiding behind the first ammendment, as it spiral down to a new level? I can't think that the all liberal New York Times would stoop to such a low level of journalism. This young man needs to be taught a lesson by our society and our university that there are principals of etiquette in journalism. Our university is doing a disservice to our young people, and our nation if they can't do better.
Posted by Max N. Goodwin on September 24, 2007 11:07 AMJMH,
More worthless generalizations and capricious observations.
Posted by Independent on September 24, 2007 10:59 AMI love all the crying... Man I hit a nerve with all you chicken-hawks huh? Maybe Neo-Cons have a conscience after all...
"How do you know if they are neo-cons? Maybe they are just conservatives." -Independant.
Because all the real conservatives have fled the GOP and are upset with Bush's failed nation building, his raping of the Constitution and his violations of our civil-liberties and his economic irresponsablities. That's how I know. You are as independant as Bill O'Rielly. Please, you are just another Neo-Con that doesn't want to admit he was dupped...
Just because I am capable of seeing the truth for what it is, doesn't make me some ultra-liberal. It makes me a "mainstream American".
Oh, and "Wise One". I have never been on dKos and I can figure things out without talking points, unlike you apparently, little Bush bootlicker... Fuck all you Republicans that can't handle the TRUTH.
Posted by JMH on September 24, 2007 10:49 AMJMH- lol. Anger problem? Too easy too push your net buttons.
Do you assume everyone is a 'Neo-Con"? There were conservatives long before.
Can't fathom it can you, maybe get off dKos and find your talking points somewhere else.
and FUCK you too, bitch.
Dirk,
The whole problem boils down to two things. One is that taxpayers should have a say in what happens on campuses that they fund. Which is why I am against the ever increasing intrusion into our lives by tax payer funded institutions. If all schools were totally private, then only those who supprt the institution would have a say.
The other is that the left has framed free speech issues in such a way as to outlaw speech which they find offensive, while leaving all that they want to say protected. Either all speech is free, or you will have Animal Farm like free speech. (and I am not talking about fire in a crowded theater, but rather no speech in print should ever be censored by governement, but can be censored by those who have an economic interest in the publication process.) The good news is that the advertisers are voting on this "editorial" with their dollars.
Posted by Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) on September 24, 2007 10:33 AMJMH,
That was a whole bunch of worthless generalizations you spewed.
How do you if they have served or not in Iraq?
How do you know that there intentions are to only support Bush?
How do you know if they are neo-cons? Maybe they are just conservatives.
How do you know they are not protesting the ethical challenges that McSwane finds in vogue?
Get away from the ultra-liberal quackery.
Posted by Independent on September 24, 2007 10:32 AMJMH:
Thug justice for life huh?
Talk about a chicknhawk.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 10:25 AMHow about this:
F*CK McSwane and F*ck CSU
F*ck Obama and F*CK JMH too.
RMN, however, has a right to censor this, THIS speech isn't protected by the 1st amendment.
Posted by C. Dawson on September 24, 2007 10:10 AMOh Wise One,
I was not sure if there filters, so I tired to not make it an issue... But, since you want it, you got it - Fuck Bush and Fuck you !!!
I find it funny that the Neo-cons out there always want to sound like they are the tough guys, but say a "bad word" and it makes them cry. Whaa-whaa...
Ya want proof ? The College Republicans are going to protest this today. Why are they not out fighting in Iraq? You would think that the College Republicans would all be in Iraq right now, since they support Bush and his policies so much. But think again... when they have the chance to stand up and put thier asses where their mouths are, they are nowhere to be found. Typical of Neo-Cons - chicken-hawks one and all.
Posted by JMH on September 24, 2007 10:09 AMDirk,
How am I building strawmen and finding hypocrisy?
I merely suggested that freedom of speech is implied, as etiquette and ethics is implied. I also implied that there are standards. I also implied that readers/consumers had choices on whether to support sponsors of this type of Jerry Springer journalism.
8dude-
Absolutely correct sir. Gotta' have it, every day. Censorship can lead to armies backing oil deals. Dooooooooh, that can never happen. HST is asking for a stiff drink in his grave right now. Generatioin of Swine I bring you. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? - Bluto
Where was this degenerate Nimf raised? Perhaps in a disfunctional pig-swill! Is this a sample of future journalism hiding behind the first ammendment, as it spirals down to a new level? I can't think that the all liberal New York Times would stoop to such a low level of journalism. This young man needs to be taught by our university that there are principals of etiquette in journalism. Our university is failing our young people, and our nation if they can't do better.
Posted by Max N. Goodwin on September 24, 2007 09:53 AMI wonder if military recruiters might show up for the protest by the CSU Republicans. Maybe they could get some people who really believe in Bush to sign up. Naah, probably not.
Posted by just sayin' on September 24, 2007 09:44 AMJMH, why is there an asterisk in your F bomb? Is there a filter on this blog? Or are you too meek and mild to publish it.
If there is a filter, maybe that should give you pause, if you are too meek, that is laughable. At you, not with you.
Dumbass
If this is against policy, then it's against policy, so somebody will suffer, it appears.
But seriously: the word is not so vulgar that advertisers should pull their ads, etc.
Michael and Ben: typical of you, you are trying to build strawmen and hypocrisy when there is none. I would not at all object to an editorial that said "fuck Democrats" or whatever. I might disagree, but I wouldn't insist people should shut up.
As for "Fuck Niggers" or similar: it isn't quite the same thing. The reason is not only because it's a highly charged racial epithet, but also because race, albeit a social construction based on genetic traits, is not under anyone's control. Being opposed to Democrats or an incompetent president, or whatever, is about opposing ideas and the choices people make. Being against a racial category is flat out bigotry.
That isn't to say I'd necessarily say we should silence anyone who's a bigot (hey, it's their funeral), but that the equation you're trying to make doesn't work.
Anyway, seriously, are you folks really offended? Oh! They said "Fuck Bush"! My bleeding ears!
Indeed it's uncouth and sophmoric, but honestly--is this really what this discussion is or should be about? The word "fuck"?
Posted by Dirk Gently on September 24, 2007 09:37 AMI am disappointed that these simple, blunt, crude, and vulgar statements seem to exhaust language abilities of current CSU students. Those of you graduating in the near future, looking for jobs, will soon appreciate the importance of your universities reputation. If the goal of this headline was to crystalize opinions that CSU is a "no-name, cow college," then congratulations on your editorial success.
Alumni, 1987
Posted by G. Baldwin on September 24, 2007 09:37 AMF*CK BUSH ! F*CK BUSH ! F*CK BUSH!!!
It is propbaly safe to say that over 60% of the country agrees with the jist of this opinion. While I can see the "morals" people on the right crying about this (when aren't they crying about something) and I can understand why some others may be upset with a curse word being used... I for one support this.
The F-bomb is the perfect word to reflect the rage most of America has towards what this man has done to this country. Let me say this... F*CK BUSH !!!
Posted by JMH on September 24, 2007 09:34 AMAs a CSU alums, the kind that hires interns from CSU and occasionally shells out some bucks when they come around, I was not pleased to hear about this.
While the paper itself is self funded and student run, it certainly doesn't say a lot for the quality of scholars CSU is taking in, or the quality of scholars that students look up to.
The statement they allege they are trying to make about free speech is a child's grasp of the concept. Congratulations...you've made a statement that upsets people but isn't legally actionable. You're all grown up now! We're so proud of you!
This is commercially actionable though - advertisers pulling their budgets. That's the real lesson here. And if McSwane and his lemmings get hit in the pocketbook, the lesson they might learn is that intelligent, insightful political speech should be valued. Ugliness and vulgarity are divisive.
I rather expected this from Boulder.
Posted by Carver on September 24, 2007 09:09 AMIf would have been F--- Democrats, all you loony libs would be calling hate speech and demanding the republicans quit and appologize. You libs are truly a wagon on loons. Willy Wonka has more common sense than the average libtard
Posted by on September 24, 2007 09:04 AMTo all my 'free speech' supporters on the blog and I wish you all well and would like to ask just how open minded and tolerant you are.
How about if we substitute the dreaded N word where 'Bush' is? Or how about 'Jews'? Or 'Muslims'? Or 'Move.On'? Or 'The ACLU'? Or 'Ted Kennedy'? Or anyone else or any other group, political organization, religious faith, etc.? Get my point? If we do it for President Bush then it has to be allowed for ALL. Do you think this J. David McSwane would have been so 'liberal and open minded' about free specch had any other proper name been the object of the F modifier? I do not think so.
Though I'm sure many people have thought this headline and probably uttered it in public discourse, free speech is implied. We should also expect that etiquette and ethics be implied. Fire him, or boycott the advertisers in the paper. That will get him canned. We have standards do we not?
Posted by Ben on September 24, 2007 08:56 AMWhy wasn't the right outraged when Dick Cheney, the vice-president of the US told Pat Leahy, a US Congressman to "F____ yourself" during an argument in 2004, in the senate, during a photo shoot?
People are resorting to vile language and outrageous ads because of the impotent rage many of us feel about an administration that is trashing the constitution on a daily basis, and murdering innocents in Iraq - and most people are standing by, picking their noses and watching football. This is not the last of this trend.
Posted by Mandark on September 24, 2007 08:53 AMThis is right up there with the "bong hits for Jesus" affair for getting people talking. Not sure it is the weightiest issue du jour however.
If we're going to have free speech, then let's have it, however controversial it may be.
Posted by gr8fuldude on September 24, 2007 08:45 AMI have noticed other expletives that are not bleeped out or are emblazoned across headlines... one that pops to mind is BITCH. So, if it doesn't matter with that word, why should it matter with the "F" word. I think it is the other four letter word (BUSH) that is causing all the grief and if we were telling somebody else to "F" off, it would not cost anybody his job!
Posted by Supportive on September 24, 2007 08:38 AMIf the editor of a college paper thinks this vulgar and crude remark is a valid editorial comment unto itself, and makes a 'statement' - then he is correct. It makes the statement that he is an uneducated moron masquerading as a college newspaper editor. When morons like this cannot make their case without a personal and vulgar attack, they hide behind this 'free speech' canard in an attempt to make everyone think they are enlightened and open minded. They are wrong. They are simply vulgar and crude. Should we expect more from our universities? Yes, but don't hold your breath.
Posted by Michael on September 24, 2007 08:35 AMMeh, storm in a teacup.
I can see where people would find the use of the word "fuck" to be inappropriate, but I don't understand how people can actually call for the head of the paper's editor. Free speech is free speech--if you don't like it, mount a counter argument, etc. It's ridiculous to insist that other people shut up.
On that note: although I understand why NYC didn't want Ahmadinejad at the WTC site, WTF is everyone's problem with him speaking at Columbia? This is a university audience--it's not like he would have been able to blather on unconstested. The whole POINT of the forum is to expose students to the man directly, and then he would have had to face pointed questions from the audience, who I'm guessing would not be as diplomatic as the UN. He would have seen American free speech forums in action, and they would have seen the man in all his crazy in person.
What is it, exactly, that people are so afraid of in this country that they disallow a controversial figure from merely SPEAKING? God, this country is full of idiots.
Posted by Dirk Gently on September 24, 2007 08:35 AM