It could be said that I am a creature of habit. Most of my Fridays unfold in about the same way: I wake up red-eyed and weary at 7:27; I shower for the better part of eight minutes; I’m at work-sporting a tasteful tie and matching shirt-by three minutes to nine. Once at work, after enjoying the New York Times and the Washington Post, I turn to our nation’s third-most authoritative news source: Student Life.
But, three Fridays ago, my faith in Student Life was called into question. The story goes like this: As Friday’s editor, I’m responsible for soliciting and grammar-checking three articles each week. That week, John Hewitt, a frequent and much-loved contributor, had submitted an article. Grammatically speaking, the piece was flawless and I placed it in the pile to be published without a second thought.
Now, fast-forward to Friday morning. I was feeling disgruntled, groggy and genuinely uninterested in being at work. To stave off productivity, I turned to Student Life online. I read and reread my own editorial a few hundred times and then began John’s. My first thought was, what the fuck?
You see, originally his work read like this:
“Americans have a serious problem with their perception of war. They like it when they think it’s for pure reasons. But everyone starts flipping out when the big secret gets out that war is really all about killing the enemy, taking pictures of his corpse, taking all his stuff, fucking his wife, fucking his children and blowing up his house. Oh no, Americans are supposed to be ‘above’ that. We’re just too nice! We don’t torture, we don’t rape, we don’t slaughter-‘not in my Army!’ says the old guard.”
But that wasn’t what Student Life chose to publish. After some very aggressive neutering, John’s most emphatic sentence was reduced to, “war is really about sleeping with his wife and messing with his children.” Somehow, “messing with his children” didn’t have the quite the same zest.
Needless to say, I was disappointed.
Now, before I launch into what will surely be a tired and uninspired defense of free speech, a few things should be made clear. First, as a privately funded newspaper, Student Life’s authors and contributors don’t enjoy any constitutional protections. The Constitution only applies to government’s purview and, sadly, Student Life doesn’t fall under it. Student Life and its editors are free to set their own standards for decency and apply them as they see fit.
That said, I would argue that the paper’s relationship with the University and the University’s purported respect for academic freedom and open debate complicate the question. As such, investigating our constitutional rights can be both relevant and informative-though, ultimately, not binding.
So what does the Constitution say about our right to free speech? To be sure, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that free speech is not absolute. They have consistently argued that “obscene” speech falls outside of constitutional protection. Still, the bar for obscenity is a high one. In order for speech to be classified as obscene it has to be, among other things, sexual. As Chief Justice Burger wrote in Miller v. California (1973), obscene material has to “depict or describe patently offensive ‘hard core’ sexual conduct.” Clearly, John’s comments don’t qualify-even by the most restrictive reading of the obscenity clause.
Another important consideration when evaluating John’s use of explicit language is his purpose. Having read more than a handful of his editorials, I can tell you that the boy has a large vocabulary and a genuine command of language. Therefore, John’s phrasing, I’m quite sure, was neither the result of laziness nor bad taste. Instead, this was a conscious choice to be incendiary, to jar. In fact, there is an emotional intensity in his wording that might not have been effected with more Victorian language. On this, Justice Harlan has written, “.words are often chosen as much for their emotive as cognitive force. … Emotive [speech], practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated.” In other words, John’s colorful language stands safely within precedent.
Moreover, John’s editorial falls squarely within the bounds of the Constitution’s most hallowed speech: namely, political dissent. That John was not using profanity casually-as I have throughout my article-is important. Instead, he was cursing in order to add emotional weight to a substantive political critique.
In my opinion, however, the best argument for the publication of limited and thoughtful profanity is not a constitutional one. Most simply, we are all adults. Our paper is written, distributed and read by those of, at least, college age-with minimal opportunity for accidental exposure to children. Given our age, collective maturity and the premium placed on intellectual freedom in this environment, I can’t imagine a cogent argument for censoring legitimate political speech that makes use of the profane. (It should also be noted that, to me, the casual and flagrant use of profanity in this article would be inappropriate under normal circumstances. My attempt to make a point, in my opinion, qualifies it as acceptable here.)
So, let us breathe deep, stand tall and strike up a rousing chorus of “God Bless America!” For our country is strong enough to make room for even the words we don’t like and the opinions we don’t hold. We’ve founded a special place where brave men like Mr. Hewitt are free to rile and rankle-and we’re a better nation for it. In fact, every time I see the stars and stripes, I can’t help but think that pissing people off is a pastime that’s been sewn into its very fabric. It’s patently American.
And thus, to close, I’ll leave you with the wise words of the Supreme Court: “Surely the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us…For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”
Zach is a senior in Arts & Sciences and a Forum editor.
Editor’s Note: It should be noted, for the record, that Hewitt’s column was “neutered” due to an unfortunate copy editing snafu, rather than a deliberate policy decision on the part of the Student Life staff. We fully support the use of “fuck” and other expletives in Forum pieces when the subject matter merits it-but only when the subject matter merits it. Additionally, expletives may appear in quotations in other sections-we do not censor our interviews. And personally, the editor enjoys using the word “fuck” just as much as the next college student, and certainly supports seeing it in print-when merited.