Last Friday, Colorado State University’s student newspaper decided to replace an editorial with the statement, “Taser this? F*** Bush.”
It was meant to be a point about free speech. The editors of that newspaper decided that the electrocuting of a student by police in Florida during a political rally was another example of our country cracking down on First Amendment rights.
Now, there has been immense backlash from the local community. Companies pulled $30,000 worth of ads from the paper, and CSU’s Board of Student Communications – which oversees the newspaper – will meet to discuss the possible firing of the newspaper’s editor in chief.
I completely respect the newspaper editorial board’s choice to use that headline. It’s their right to print that because that is their opinion.
The beautiful thing about living in a free country is that everyone has the right to make their own choices. Newspapers are free to print their opinions. Advertisers are free to choose whether to support those opinions with money, and readers are free to pick up the newspaper.
Our country is built on a system of checks and balances. Just as newspapers are a check on our government, the public – and its cash – is there to balance journalists.
If The Daily Aztec chose to print an editorial detailing the last time one of our employees had sex, that is within our right. If people chose to pull their ads or not read the paper, is that a loss of First Amendment rights? No.
The CSU newspaper’s situation is not a case of a government crackdown on freedom of speech. In fact, the government has done absolutely nothing about it. But the public (most notably, the advertisers) has exercised its right to choose, and they chose not to support it.
Freedom only goes so far. You’re not free to run naked through a kindergarten class. You’re not free to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater – even though technically that imposes on your First Amendment rights. With freedom comes responsibility.
As far as the Colorado situation, the editor in chief doesn’t deserve to be fired for his opinion. It was within his right to freedom of speech to write that editorial.
However, he’s also the head of a business. And by choosing to write that, he alienated a large portion of his advertisers. If the head of a company loses a significant amount of money, he should be fired.
After all, if it’s freedom we’re looking for, everyone in this case exercised theirs. The newspaper was – and still is – free to write “F*** Bush.”
And the advertisers chose to exercise their freedom to effectively say “f*** you.” The First Amendment wins again.
