I don’t understand where the word censor ever caim into this debate as a member of students of faith I can honestly say that the coalition is not looking to censor anyone. This is entirely a funding issue… That is not something I am willing to stand by and pay the bills for.

This is not at all an unreasonable way to feel. Let me try to say why I have a problem with it.

First of all, the line that you’re “not looking to censor anyone” is, coincidentally enough, exactly the same one the people who were trying to shut the Commentator down last year took. Of course we’re opposed to censorship. We just want to control what’s being said, that’s all. So if you find us unusually sensitive about this sort of thing, that might be why.

Secondly, the whole point of this funding model, as affirmed in Southworth, is that you don’t get to take into account which student groups you, personally, like or dislike during the funding process. Since virtually anything can be construed as offensive or hurtful to someone or other, there’d be no student groups left. Again, the OC periodically has to deal with baseless accusations of “hatefulness”, so we’re all fairly well attuned to this.

Here’s the thing: your speech is as protected as everyone else’s - no more, no less. This is something that Christians on campus should treasure, as it’s your ultimate protection against whatever the kids in the Survival Center may or may not feel about your belief system. They have no power over you. All they can do is speak their minds. And the same goes for you guys, too.

Now, if you want to start campaigning against the incidental fee in its entirety, you’ll probably get some traction around these parts. But until then, it’s all or nothing, I’m afraid.

I would recommend, most highly, that you take Jason Tanenbaum’s “Art and the State” Course (PS 301). He’s fair, balanced, and provides a good outlook on Art, it’s connection to the State, and Media.

Look them up. That’s the relevant case law on the issue of student fee funded speech, I suggest you familiarize yourself with it before you go on national television to bask in the adoration of some soft-headed statist again. I’d also suggest learning how to tie a proper knot, a full windsor perhaps.

Repeat after me: Student fee (or publicly) funded publications cannot be defunded for their content, and distribution of funds must be done in a viewpoint-neutral manner (that is with neutrality to the viewpoint of the publication in question). While we can go around all day about the prudence of funding such publications at all (I am not in favor of fee-funded or publicly funded speech), so long as it exists those are the rules. And that’s as it should be, the same power you wish Frohnmeyer or the ASUO had to capriciously punish speech you find offensive could be used against you at the whim of some other over-sensitive campus jerk. Perhaps one who couldn’t decide if he was a male or a female, for instance. Maybe, say, over a dick joke.

Again, I’ll leave you with the wise words of John Stuart Mill:

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme;” not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

{Snip}

Let the opinions impugned be the belief in a God and in a future state, or any of the commonly received doctrines of morality. To fight the battle on such ground, gives a great advantage to an unfair antagonist; since he will be sure to say (and many who have no desire to be unfair will say it internally), Are these the doctrines which you do not deem sufficiently certain to be taken under the protection of law? Is the belief in a God one of the opinions, to feel sure of which, you hold to be assuming infallibility? But I must be permitted to observe, that it is not the feeling sure of a doctrine (be it what it may) which I call an assumption of infallibility. It is the undertaking to decide that question for others, without allowing them to hear what can be said on the contrary side. And I denounce and reprobate this pretension not the less, if put forth on the side of my most solemn convictions. However positive any one’s persuasion may be, not only of the falsity, but of the pernicious consequences–not only of the pernicious consequences, but (to adopt expressions which I altogether condemn) the immorality and impiety of an opinion; yet if, in pursuance of that private judgment, though backed by the public judgment of his country or his contemporaries, he prevents the opinion from being heard in its defence, he assumes infallibility. And so far from the assumption being less objectionable or less dangerous because the opinion is called immoral or impious, this is the case of all others in which it is most fatal. These are exactly the occasions on which the men of one generation commit those dreadful mistakes which excite the astonishment and horror of posterity. It is among such that we find the instances memorable in history, when the arm of the law has been employed to root out the best men and the noblest doctrines; with deplorable success as to the men, though some of the doctrines have survived to be (as if in mockery) invoked, in defence of similar conduct towards those who dissent from them, or from their received interpretation.

I think that censoring them is a mistake. The Insurgent obviously is a ridiculous publication - a joke - and is written by a bunch of wannabee anarchists. I can’t quite figure the Insurgent out, is it an elaborate joke? Whatever the point is, censoring them would do no real good, all it would do is raise sympathy for their twisted ideology. I just want this to be discussed in a civilized matter, as it happening here.

But thanks anyway for trying to shoe-horn me into your little stereotype spectrum.

Fuck it. I still think the post was ridiculous.

Interesting. So… You’re not losing any sleep over the Church’s “every sperm is sacred” policy? Oh, wait… Of course you’re not… Why should we care that millions of children are being born with AIDS? After all, we can always ensure that there will be a few Priests present in the affected areas, and, that way, we can save plenty of souls before too many of them die…

I’m no fan of the Insurgent, but… they’re a bunch of clowns. At its worst, the Insurgent’s “survival center” is probably a breeding ground for future ELF members.

Wheras… At its worst (in the modern era, anyway), the Church manages to convince hundreds of millions of people to spit in the face of science and reason…

On the other hand, if the Catholic League feels threatened by the likes of the Insurgent staff, they’ve got bigger problems than … oh, actually they do have bigger problems, so never mind. In any case, the Catholic Church can clamour all they want for censorship. It matters not. They won’t get it, and God bless the Constitution for that.

That said, while the Catholic League only wants to shut up a bunch of wannabe anarchosyndicalists, do you really think a tear would be shed over at the Insurgent if every Catholic on the planet spontaneously combusted? I’d say that on balance, I’d have an easier time looking myself in the mirror every morning as a Catholic than as a writer for the Insurgent.

The whole sorry, tragic thing about this mess is that the Insurgent, their staff and their (ahem) readers got to feel like the victims they have been trying to convince the world they are since Karl Marx first sat down at his desk.

The upside is that free speech won the day and that should make it a little easier to heft those El Dorado mugs for all of you.

So why didn’t you just write a letter to the emerald? You took the steps to initiate sanctions by the ASUO on the inturdgent by filing a grievance. You wrote that you were discriminated against, and you wanted them to be punished. At least take responsibility for your actions.

It was ultimately my action and not Mr. Turcott’s, but the fact is that I was instructed by the student government to file the grievance, I did not entirely know what I was getting myself involved in.

If cartoons are the worse “persecution” you face, I’d say it’s a damn fine day. I mean, really. Try being the Falun Gong, or a Christian in Pakistan or Iran. Come back when somebody’s feeding you to lions again, or when you’ve been cruxified upside down. Cable TV you don’t like, and stupid cartoons do not a persecution make.

Okay, not really. First of all, this whole Insurgent issue has blown up, but I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. Although I disagreed with elements of the grievance, I do not think that Zachary should feel bad about filing it. If the Insurgent has the right to speak its mind, then so should Zachary. I think a well-worded guest column would have been better, but whatever … This still would have become a mini-issue in religious circles around the country.

Anyway, I just hope this all blows over. I made my point, and made an argument, and it was denied by the Student Government. I don’t really care about the Insurgent anymore. All I want to do is discuss this with them, and I probably will just go ahead and do that.

In the immortal and infamous words of Pilate, I “wash my hands of this,” if any of you hear of national groups getting involved, it is not my doing.

Fuck it, man. I’d sooner drink the KoolAid…

Word ’round the campfire is that this might get some more national attention. As Matt Drudge would say, developing …