Opinion

Civility vs. civil liberty

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• UW officials discourage free speech on campus (June 28, 2001)
• Meet Sam Clegg (September 2, 2008)
• Civil unions vital (September 29, 2006)
• Riot act (October 27, 2005)
• Smoking Ban poses public health risk (April 21, 2005)

Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:

• The Invisible Man Award: Wyndham Manning (May 7, 2009)
• The People's Choice Award: Jacqueline Hitchon et. al (May 7, 2009)
• The Lifetime Achievement Award: ASM (May 7, 2009)
• Honest representation (May 5, 2009)
• Junger for ASM Chair (May 5, 2009)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

 

“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” — First Amendment, United States Constitution

Seems like a simple rule. Yet any scholar of free speech knows that this is not the case. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government can make exceptions based on advocacy of illegal action, “fighting words,” and libel, just to name a few. But it seems that Assistant Attorney General John Anderson of Maryland as well as the University of Maryland would like to carve out one more chunk from the First Amendment through the abolition of certain language at college sports events. This action could have a serious effect on fans here at UW.

This all began Jan. 21, when J.J. Redick and his Duke Blue Devils faced the Maryland Terrapins at the Comcast Center, U of M’s home court. As Redick stepped to the foul line, students began yelling “Fuck you, J.J.!” Unfortunately for Redick, ESPN broadcast the game nationally. Everyone watching at home could hear these chants.

The resulting firestorm was enormous. Some students, other citizens, community leaders and athletic officials began to question whether fans should be ejected from the arena for using such language. At first, the university discarded this suggestion as an infringement on the free-speech rights of students. But after complaints mounted, officials asked the Attorney General’s office if there might be some legal means of limiting such language.

Assistant Attorney General John Anderson responded with a four-page memo in the affirmative. Among other things, Anderson said U of M may “constitutionally adopt a carefully drafted policy that prohibits offensive speech.” And what of the First Amendment? “I do not conclude that [it] condemns any such effort to failure.” According to a report by the Washington Times, he also said no policy should be implemented until other efforts “prove to be ineffective.” U of M is now in the process of developing a plan that would restrict vulgar language on the part of fans.

The trouble we see is twofold. First, other policies did prove effective in this case. Coach Gary Williams told fans not to use profane language shortly before a game Feb. 1 — an act this newspaper has previously applauded. The school later played videos on the arena’s jumbo screen with Williams reiterating similar comments. According to the same report by the Washington Times, there were no major incidents the rest of the season. Thus, why should U of M push to regulate speech when a basic, personal appeal to more moderate language is equally effective?

Second, a possible restriction on vulgar language by students in a public forum (i.e., a public university’s public facility) is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. We find it alarming that Anderson and U of M truly believe a possible regulation could be constitutional. Though Anderson cites two cases in which the speech involved “captive auditors” such as children, his reasoning is still wrongheaded. In Cohen v. California, the Supreme Court ruled profane language cannot be prohibited even in the presence of a captive audience.

The most distressing aspect of this event is that it might happen here at the University of Wisconsin. Already, the marching band will not play certain songs in order to limit offensive language. Thankfully, Dean of Students Luoluo Hong has said no such code would be enacted.

Nevertheless, we ask university officials not to follow U of M’s lead. UW’s efforts to create a more civil discourse at sporting events — particularly at football games garnering national attention — must not come at the expense of basic freedom. If athletic director and football coach Barry Alvarez or Chancellor John Wiley wish to broadcast messages asking students to cheer in a more respectful way, fine. But limiting free speech contradicts a constitutionally protected right. The right that allows this university to fearlessly sift and winnow is the same one that allows Section O and Section P to perpetually battle. While we are glad restrictions are not currently on the horizon for UW, events at U of M necessitate continued vigilance.

Other steps can prove extremely useful in moderating discourse; these are being discussed. But expelling certain voices because some individuals find certain words profane or vulgar cannot be one of them.