University Utilizing Faulty Irony Detector Censors Flyer Protesting Its Censorship Policy
from the a-nice-warm-glass-of-shut-the-fuck-up dept
It's incredibly odd that institutions of higher learning are so intent on treating their students, who are all adults in the law's eyes, as overly sensitive children who need to be kept in a protective, non-offensive bubble during their stay on campus. Even stranger, one would think that "higher learning" would be a bastion of free speech, as encountering unfamiliar, offensive or otherwise reprehensible viewpoints opens new areas for debate and encourages critical thinking. Instead, free speech is at its most restrained on a majority of campuses out of administrative fear that someone, somewhere might be offended. But this would force the administration to treat those in these circumstances like adults in a free society, one that holds individuals responsible for their words and actions, which is something they are less than inclined to do.What happens instead is a sanitized "hive mind" atmosphere in which every student is treated as part of a collective "student body," an entity whose tolerance for "offensive" speech is constantly calibrated to the most "sensitive" members of this whole. Once the walk over the eggshells of "free" speech begins, situations loaded with unintentional irony arise.
Blatantly ignoring the First Amendment, administrators at Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) in Michigan's Tri-Cities area have repeatedly censored a student's posters—ironically, posters that protest a new, unconstitutional SVSU policy that allows the school to censor student postings.The rules may seem sensible at first glance, but as FIRE points out, vague terms like "good taste" or "derogatory" leave the door wide open for inconsistent application of the policy, as well as allowing anything and everything that someone might find "tasteless" or "derogatory" to be censored by the Student Life office. The ambiguity of the policy doesn't end there. The full posting policy also notes that the Student Life office reserves the right to refuse any submission.
Over the summer, SVSU adopted a new posting policy that requires all flyers to be approved by the Student Life office. The policy states that all postings "[m]ust be in good taste, free from profanity, nudity, or sexually suggestive graphics/phrasing," and "[c]annot include discriminatory or derogatory statements or graphics." The policy did not define "good taste," or what is "discriminatory or derogatory," leaving students to guess what might or might not pass muster with the subjective opinions of SVSU administrators.
An SVSU student correctly concluded that this policy was restricting free speech on campus. And that's where the fun began.
On August 29, student Daniel Chapman, believing the new speech code to be unconstitutional, submitted posters for approval stating "Fuck Censorship, Fuck Oppression, Fuck the Draft. Fight for Free Speech and Political Expression at SVSU and Elsewhere."On the face of it, Chapman's protest seems almost childish and clearly violates the "no profanity" policy. But Chapman's reckless use of the word "fuck" had a purpose: to draw a parallel to a landmark free speech case.
As Chapman explained in an email to an administrator, he purposely chose this slogan to parallel the seminal 1971 Supreme Court case of Cohen v. California, in which the Court made clear that the First Amendment protects the use of expletives in the communication of core political speech. In Cohen, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Vietnam War protester for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "Fuck the Draft" in a county courthouse. The Court held that the message on Cohen's jacket, however offensive to some, was protected speech, writing that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric."Student Life and school administrators remained unimpressed. So, Chapman practiced a little self-censorship in order to get his fliers approved.
The next day, Chapman also submitted pre-censored posters for approval reading "F*ck Censorship" and "F!_!ck Censorship."Still no good. Apparently, the punctuation was still too strong and SVSU refused to approve the pre-censored fliers, opting instead to approve the comparatively toothless "Stand Up for Free Speech" version. At this point, Chapman contacted FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) which sent off two letters informing SVSU that its policy violated the First Amendment.
"It is difficult to understand how SVSU administrators, after consulting with a lawyer, could believe they have the right to censor political speech that contains profanity—even censored profanity—when the Supreme Court has made clear that the exact opposite is true," said FIRE Director of Speech Code Research Samantha Harris. "While their apparent dislike for expletives may be sincere, President Gilbertson and his administration must know that their actions violate the First Amendment. They need to understand that, just like Americans' other civil rights, the First Amendment is not optional, and that as public servants, constitutional obligations come first."The letters went unanswered and FIRE is now planning to take Chapman's complaint to the next level and inform the governor and Michigan state attorney that SVSU's disregard for its students' rights opens it up to potential liability.
Beyond the legal issues, there's the administration's firm belief that the use of an expletive is somehow offensive to a large enough portion of it's presumably foul-mouthed-as-any-other-budding-adult student body will be offended not only by a printed "Fuck" but also by any variation substituting common punctuation for the evil "u." Is the risk of offense so great that it's willing to defend its actions in court? But I doubt this is actually about some stray F-words and more about a pet policy being openly challenged. Now SVSU is in the unenviable position of ceding ground to someone it desperately wants to shut up or going toe-to-toe with an organization more well-versed in First Amendment rights than it is.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyoneâs attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, free speech, saginaw valley state university
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not just there. In England, I can get fined £1000 pounds just for telling a copper to fuck off. That doesn't stop me calling them an Andrex while telling them they should stop being a urine catheter and talking from where they should be passing waste, of course. I guess UK law enforcement is spectacularly thick, because members of another forum got what I said all right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Third step: Those without the implant die out, leaving U.S. as a single, solid hivemind.
No more crime! GREAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Resistance is Futile
But Action is Powerful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Organisations are so keen to make sure they don't offend anyone that they end up offending everyone by restricting their freedom of speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On another note, isn't the entire concept of the policy in breach of the first amendment? What if jackbooted thugs came to your house and pre-screened everything you said. What if you needed some bureaucrats permission to post something on a telephone pole? "Pre-screened sanitized Government-approved" speech is hardly the same thing as free speech.
Also, who the fuck is offended by curse words anymore? 90 year old grandmas? I can't remember the last time I saw someone go into a swoon because someone said the "D" word, or "S", etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are the stereotype curses, the gender curses, the ethnic curses, the religious curses, use any of those and you offend someone near you I guarantee.
The "D" word nobody cares but if you say the "G"(gender) word it will be an interesting day, or if you use the "I"(religion) or the "P"(religion) word or the "N"(ethinic).
Those are just examples of the new offensive terms that have supplanted the old cursing words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Except for that last one, I honestly have no idea what words those are supposed to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have no idea 'W' 'T' 'F' 80% of those words are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
gay, Islam, pagin, or nigger on this site?
What about fag, homo, spick, perv?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Its not generally enforced, however, it is indeed illegal to post ANYTHING on a telephone pole. Its considered vandalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's probably OK, as long as it's not illegal to post certain things on a telephone pole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In a college town I lived in, this is strictly enforced. As I discovered when the cops called me up to tell me to go and remove my posters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect most of them are in fact populated by pompous managers with huge egos, that believe the sheep should be good and obey anything that is throw at them and don't complain also most of them I believe were born without balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Second:
"for a long time now universities have not been a bastion for anything about civil liberties"
I think that was what the article said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And you may be right about what the article was saying, and I may or may not be wrong :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dark Helmet is Tim Geigner; this was written by Tim Cushing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Education
A university intent on censoring it's students should take a good hard look at their courses to make sure it isn't teaching them the students about the history of free speech law in this country. It's a bit like they handed him a sandwich and said "you better not eat this".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
I find it wise to avoid vulgar words, and helpful to euphemize as there are many people who simply don't want to hear those words; they are offensive and distracting. Try using them to your grandmother. It's not a big imposition to NOT spout off like a drunken sailor. The frequent use of those words doesn't show wisdom or experience, just makes it obvious that you're still children delighted saying "naughty" words.
Once upon a time those who went to university began to speak well to show they'd raised their sights. This policy of SVSU has a good goal of civilizing young savages: we all have to observe certain minimums, because we can ALL get down to savagery, that's easy. Set your standards higher than empty vocalizing as any ARF-ING ankle-biter can do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
"civilizing young savages"
"any ARF-ING ankle-biter"
The latter two directly contradict the former. No surprise. "Hypocrite" a synonym for out_of_the_blue.
"The frequent use of those words doesn't show wisdom or experience, just makes it obvious that you're still children delighted saying "naughty" words."
Oh hey, that is especially ironic coming from you. Blue, try practicing what you preach. Then, and only then, can you wag your finger at others. You fucking ankle biter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
You really don't know the meaning of the word "irony", do you, boy?
The whole point of using the obscenity is to point out that free speech is being abrogated arbitrarily.
Since only someone with average (or higher) intelligence would understand that, it's not surprising that you don't get it.
Would you consider George Carlin to be stupid?
By your (admittedly-low) standards, he'd be graded as a moron for his "Seven Words You Can't Say on Televison" monologue alone!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
Who do you think taught them to me in the first place?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
Actually, yes, it often does. See American Nazi Party vs. City of Skokie, Illinois.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free speech doesn't mean deliberate offending.
Here's your meal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Did Our Founding Fathers Use For Profanity
I believe the "F" bomb serves its purpose well in modifying an idea or expression to deliver more impact and feeling.
I believe in free speech and defend the use of the word fuck or its many combinations and expressions.
Why use another word when the word fuck says it precisely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Did Our Founding Fathers Use For Profanity
Yes, they were words like Balderdash and Humbug. Words we don't find offensive any more but were considered a high point in lowbrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Did Our Founding Fathers Use For Profanity
/endsarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Did Our Founding Fathers Use For Profanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What Did Our Founding Fathers Use For Profanity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any group that uses the term Individual Liberty can only be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Alternate Solution
Don't turn off the tap; open it up all the way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An Alternate Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rule Number 21
This may come as a surprise, but living in a free country does not mean that you are free from annoyance or immune to things that offend you, and it certainly does not give you a license to silence, reeducate, or harass people with whom you disagree. If you want to avoid being offended, you should probably try a Buddhist monastery rather than, say, public transportation or a modern university. Excerpt from the book "50 Rules Kids Won't Learn In School" by Charles J. Sykes
Of course, until the courts stand up and refuse these RIDICULOUS lawsuits brought by these emotional bullies, it's unlikely that institutions of higher learning are going to stop preparing their defenses against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The First Amendment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The First Amendment
cause you sure did not comprehend what was written.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The First Amendment
> you own its walls.
If a *public* university is going to allow students to hang posters, it cannot decide which posters are allowed and which are not based on their content or viewpoint.
Basic 1st Amendment law. This isn't even complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Truth about the totalitarian state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tolerance -- only goes one way
I find many political and personal choices offending in some manner but I don't seek to prevent them from expressing their point of view, acting on their choices, etc..
I "Tolerate" them, but when I express the point of view that I don't agree with them, I am intolerant and must be silenced.
This is an example of the same re-occurring event throughout human interaction, the intolerance of anything someone feels might make them uncomfortable - the need to tell others how to live their life. But then again that is what I am doing right now - except if they choose not to listen to me, I won't try to disallow them from being heard - and I am "in tolerant". Good thing I ignore the noise.
Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tolerance -- only goes one way
Yes, and this is where it all goes wrong. Not only is there no such thing as a "right not to be offended," being exposed to things that you find offensive is a natural and inevitable consequence of having the right to free speech. Every time I see or hear something offensive, a part of me celebrates it as a healthy sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SSDD, those who believe they are entitled will grab more at the expense of others all the while wagging their fingers claiming to be oppressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-ADC
Oh noes! This comment will most likely be censored lol.. It's all for the "grown" children of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting topic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dedektör
[ link to this | view in chronology ]