CARROLL: Free Speech 101
By Vincent Carroll, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published May 21, 2008 at 8 p.m.
Bud Peterson
How pathetic: The University of Colorado has decided to protect students from journalistic opinions "deemed controversial."
According to Boulder Chancellor Bud Peterson, writing recently in the Colorado Daily, "Campus Press editors have adopted a new opinion policy that states in part, that all opinions deemed controversial will be discussed by student editors who will strive to offset controversial opinions with a counter opinion published the same day and on the same page."
Which opinions will be deemed controversial? As a longtime editor, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
A few opinions will be judged controversial for the understandable reason that they risk offending a sizable swath of the local community. And no, that category does not include the article by 22-year-old Max Karson that appeared earlier this year in The Campus Press, the online student newspaper, and provoked the change in policy that Peterson outlined. Karson's column was such a weird and offensive failure at satire about Asians at CU that it should not have been published at all.
Unfortunately, just about any strong opinion can be dubbed controversial if some people on campus - even a relatively small number - disagree with it. Yet student editors can't be expected to hunt down a simultaneous rebuttal for every opinion they publish. The process would run aground.
So which of the many strong opinions that qualify as legitimate contributions to public debate - as opposed to a Karson-type provocation - are most likely to earn the tag of "controversial" and thus be "offset" with instant rebuttal? Why, those that raise the fur of activist groups that operate on a hair trigger and who will voice their loud displeasure.
No prudent student editor will risk publishing something that might offend one of these perpetually indignant groups without seeking a rebuttal from them first. Thus will the First Amendment be taught at the state's flagship university campus.
Yes, pathetic.
A touchy 68
Speaking of activist groups with a hair trigger, could there possibly be one more tedious than the Re-create 68 Alliance with its endless complaints about access to Denver parks during this summer's Democratic National Convention?
Waaa! We didn't get a permit to protest in Civic Center on the eve of the convention.
The public should apparently pay no attention to the inconvenient fact that Re-create 68 will be able to protest at Civic Center during the first two days of the convention. Nor should we notice that, according to a city spokeswoman, "Re-create 68 and its affiliated organizations have received 34 permit slots - in eight of the 12 available parks, including all major parks."
No, we're supposed to accept at face value the group's nonsensical portrayal of Mayor John Hickenlooper's administration as cast in the same thuggish mold as Boss Daley's machine in Vietnam-era Chicago.
It is particularly rich to see Re-create's Glenn Spagnuolo invoking constitutional rights and fair play in the group's pursuit of protest permits. After all, he doesn't actually believe in the First Amendment as most of us understand it - at least not when the issue is whether the Columbus Day parade should enjoy an undisrupted trip through Denver's downtown. Then Spagnuolo can be found in lock step with the likes of Ward Churchill, who would shut the parade down.
Now Spagnuolo presumes to lecture Denver officials about the importance of free speech. Which is important only when he says so, apparently.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Broncos Game Action
Click for more game action photos from Invesco field.
-
2008 Race for the Cure
The 16th Annual Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on today's events.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A Dozen on Denver
Connie Willis is the featured author this week in 'A Dozen on Denver'
-
Rocky Truth Patrol
Reporters Laura Frank and Katie Kerwin McCrimmon hunt for truth in politics.
-
Peak Picks
Submit your fall foliage photos to our contest and vote on other submissions.
May 21, 2008
9:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
taoistblockhead writes:
Welcome to George Bush's Fascist America - Next we'll all have to take an oath to God and the Ten Commandments, memorize the Patriot Act, and wear flag pins on our foreheads. Feel the fascist trickle down effect from the Constitution-shredding hijackers of our once great democratic republic. Bud Peterson - Goose-stepping in jackboots towards the one true America.
May 22, 2008
12:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
I think Vince Carroll thinks the threat of Peterson's proposal would come from the left as well as the right.
And I can think of all sorts of examples. If someone wanted to write a column on Christopher Columbus, various groups would label that controversial. Conservative groups have raised hell about the role of gay people in American society, they have thus created controversy, then they complained that gay issues shouldn't be talked about in school because it causes controversy. This game can be played by all sorts of players. The easiest way to avoid all this is to avoid various subject matters entirely, which would eviscerate a chief role of newspapers.
Vincent Carroll is totally on target about Glenn Spagnuolo. As far as Spagnuolo is concerned, he wants everything his way. It's not enough that he got Civic Center Park for almost all of the days he wanted. He wants it all, and he wants it now. It's a public park, other members of the public get to use it. Spagnuolo is a spoiled rotten brat. I hope the city doesn't back down.
May 22, 2008
7:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
taoistblockhead and Forward69
"Welcome to George Bush's Fascist America - Next we'll all have to take an oath to God and the Ten Commandments, memorize the Patriot Act, and wear flag pins on our foreheads. Feel the fascist trickle down effect from the Constitution-shredding hijackers of our once great democratic republic. Bud Peterson - Goose-stepping in jackboots towards the one true America."
This diatribe addresses Carroll's editorial, how?
and.......
As far as Spagnuolo and his Re-create 68 Alliance, the people of Denver must decide if ANY group will be allowed to assault it's citizens and damage property, as Spagnuolo has threatened by promising an "action", if Re-create 68's demands aren't met.
The people of Denver need to find out what's their rights are, under the law, in order to protect themselves and their property and take the appropriate, legal action against those who would intentionally cause them physical harm, or damage their property during the DNC convention.
May 22, 2008
7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
taoistblockhead and Forward69 are examples of why sites like this get criticized so much. Instead of staying on topic, they deliberately wander off on a tangent while injecting vicious attacks on those they dislike. taoistblockhead and Forward69 must be very lonely people. Mentally bankrupt pundits attack and accuse instead of debating the issues. I don't often agree wholly with Gene but I do this time.
May 22, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
I think when someone doesn't have a lucid response to a comment, the new rules state you must bring out the Bush diatribe and blame him, call him a fascist and a nazi, and blame everything that has happened in this country and world on him and his family.
Isn't that rule #1 in the Kool-aid Drinkers Guide to the Galaxy?
May 22, 2008
9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Forward69
"imagine if a con were to actually agree with a Lib? or vice versa? then the counterpoint would be mute. like our founding fathers wished we should never have become partisan. however as things are today. a Lib must agree with a Con as the con is correct ALL the time, The lib must allow equal time for the con, when the con has no such compunction. BULLS*IT"
Again, this addresses Carroll's editorial, how?
May 22, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lowtaxequalsfreedom writes:
These guys could not correctly define fascism if it was the final question on the game show millionaire.
May 22, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
JohnHKennedy writes:
"It is particularly rich to see Re-create's Glenn Spagnuolo invoking constitutional rights."
Rich indeed. Recreate68 has never attended any Impeachment protest. Hard to believe they care much about our Constitution.
Recreate68's threatening comments and refusal to pledge non-violence caused some local groups to plan alternatives to their agenda. Sadly, those groups now appear to be joining R68. National groups like World Can't Wait and Code Pink apparently have decided to drop weekly impeachment support and put all their protest efforts in Recreate68's anti-establishment bag.
It is difficult for long time protesters to resist demonstrating at conventions. For some it is the premier event of their career and the original goals get lost. For others it is enhancing the image of their own activist group within the state or national activist community.
Recreate68's threats of trouble at the DNC will lead to arrests that will make the arrestees the story and cause the media to ignore the causes they support. It is similar to a reporter becoming part of the story instead of reporting the story.
Getting arrested gives the media and voters a reason to disapprove of everything your group stands for. You cannot win the hearts and minds of voters by provoking the police with the goal of getting arrested. If supporting the Constitution means anything it requires obeying our laws. Disrespecting peace officers will accomplish nothing. We need to do our best to obey them.
Anti-war protesters have failed to stop or end the Iraq War and now need to try something new. Bring direct and relentless pressure on our Democratic Congressmen to hold impeachment hearings before the election. We must not allow them to get away with refusing to honor their oath of office. Udall in particular must be pressured.
If voters cannot trust Rep. Udall to obey the US Constitution's charge to impeach officials who have committed abuses of power, how can we trust him in the Senate on any subject. Polls show the majority of voters believe Cheney and Bush have abused their office. For Udall to ignore such serious threats is beyond belief.
Udall claims that his refusing to back impeachment hearings is simply an honest "difference of opinion". That is absurd. The Constitution (Federal Law) tells him to hold impeachment hearings if voters think officials have abused their office. Is Udall against the Constitution? Udall refuses even to debate holding hearings, cutting off voters who ask him about abuses of power. If Udall will not debate the issue with voters, is he qualified to be a Senator?
Colorado's protesters must confront Udall at his appearances demanding he hold impeachment hearings now. If he will not investigate WMD Lies he will not stop funding the killing in Iraq.
We are not part of Recreate68's alliance.
John Kennedy, organizer & 43 yr Democratic voter
Impeach Colorado Coalition http://ImpeachCO.com
May 22, 2008
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
vudumom writes:
How pathetic. Refer to the first two words in Vincent Carroll's column. Your impeachment rant is getting old.
May 22, 2008
11:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Forward69
I've read the column, but I have troubles seeing how you validate your comments.
I'm not sure, but I believe you're saying, in a nutshell: if I disagree with your point of view and your complete hatred of "conservatives', you believe me to be a knuckle-dragging neo-con. Conversely, if I disagree with someone like SASQUATCH's view and complete hatred of all "non-conservatives", he believes me to be a tax-and-spend anti-American liberal.
Quite frankly, I disagree with both your and SASQUATCH's (as well as all other) extreme views, since both sides have been less than stellar, as history attests.
May 22, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
JSeifert writes:
Whats wrong with free thought with out censorship. Why do you need a rebuttal that same day. Why can you not print one the next day or open a studant blog for the paper like this one for the rocky mountain news.
May 22, 2008
1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Glenn writes:
Ah you could always count on Vince to stretch the truth to meet his needs. No, we do not have 34 permits for 8 of the 12 parks. This is complete non-sense and any reporter who takes five minutes can do the research on this. Also we are not crying about the lottery, we, and most citizens, should be upset that a public space is being removed by a private group to prevent the public from having a voice. And as for the Columbus Day line he keeps spewing, they may have a right to free speech, but we have a right to respond. When you support genocide of the Indigenous population and are going to celebrate it with a parade, we are going to oppose it. Both groups have rights, theirs to be racist and ours to say it is not welcomed in our communities.
May 22, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Glenn writes:
Just to help you all out, this is what we stated at the press conference. The only people crying is the City's Democratic administration because we may ruin their 100 million dollars party.
DENVER, May 19, 2008—Representatives of the Recreate 68 Alliance, which is coordinating demonstrations around the Democratic National Convention, announced today that it had to obtain permits from the State of Colorado for the west steps of the State Capitol Building and Lincoln Park for Sunday, August 24, the day before the DNC, as a venue to stage a massive antiwar protest. This action became necessary because the city of Denver allowed a party organizer for the DNC Host Committee—a private, well-funded organization—to apply for and obtain a permit for Civic Center Park for that date, shutting the public out of the largest public park in downtown Denver. In addition, the City had refused to engage in dialogue with R68 to resolve the issue as promised.
As Glenn Spagnuolo of R68 explained, despite reports to the contrary, R68 has never threatened conflict with the Host Committee. “We only pointed out, based on past experience,” Spagnuolo said, “that the city, by denying us a place to put the thousands of people expected for this event, was creating the potential for conflict. The City promised to work with groups who did not obtain permits to assure their voices are heard during the convention, this did not occur.” R68 asked the city to discuss this situation with them, after being rebuffed, R68 worked with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to try to arrange a meeting. The city refused the requests not only of R68 but of the DOJ as well.
“Our goal from the beginning,” said R68 spokesperson Mark Cohen, “has been to create a safe space for people to peacefully exercise their First Amendment rights. Civic Center Park would have been the most appropriate space—public parks are for the public. Since the city has denied its use to the public, R68 has obtained permits from the State of Colorado in order to avoid unnecessary conflict.”
Therefore, to avert conflict and assure that people will be able to safely and peacefully gather to express their concerns about the war, R68 obtained the state permits. R68 members Larry Hales and Carlo Garcia, both of whom have family members serving in Iraq, said that people have not only a right but a responsibility to bring their concerns about the ongoing war to the attention of convention delegates and elected officials. “We have been negotiating with the city in good faith for a year and a half,” Hales said. “We wish we could say the same for them. But we are doing everything in our power to assure people that they can exercise their Constitutional rights.”
May 22, 2008
1:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Glenn writes:
Hey John, nice lies, we never promised violence and have a statement of non-violence on our website that has been there for a long time, and you know that. As far as not supporting your cause, when have you ever approached us or tried to organize the community aside from standing on a corner with your sign. Even though holding signs to bring attention to a cause is important, it is not reaching out beyond your pathetic little comfort zone and actually doing the work of organizing. Try to stop attacking folks on the left and maybe somebody may actually listen to you.
May 22, 2008
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
JohnHKennedy: This is on your website -
"We Americans get our rights and freedom from the Constitution, not from any political party."
That statement is incorrect. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights (as is written in the DOI) - the US Constitution simply guarantees they will not be and cannot be taken away under the law(s) of the United States of America.
So we do not "get" our rights from the US Constitution. Maybe update that website of yours????
May 22, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
vinnie's shilling for the far right is getting a little ridiculous.
how is the decision to "offset controversial opinions with a counter opinion published the same day and on the same page" 'pathetic' to use carroll's own word?
time to get this guy access to Monster and get him out of town.
not qualified to run an objective editorial page.
May 22, 2008
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Oh_Wise_One writes:
jay, the only reason you think Vince Carroll "shill for the far right" is because you are so far left you can't see the sun set.
May 22, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
Live free or die.
May 22, 2008
4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Glenn
So, you wouldn't mind, should Re-create 68, or any other group start violent acts during it's "demonstrations", the folks of Denver should do what ever is legal to protect themselves and their property from any violent act on the "demonstrator's" part, even if that means violence against those demonstrators who are themselves, violent?
May 22, 2008
5:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
JimmyB writes:
Glenn
It's not that I'm advocating violence, only violence against those who would cause others harm, then claim they were only exercising their right to "free speech."
May 22, 2008
5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Glenn writes:
Hey JimmyB up your meds, maybe it will help. As I stated, we are not planning any violent acts. Get over the lies already.
May 23, 2008
12:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
John Kennedy @ 10:20am,
A short segue. My recollection is, serious calls for Nixon's impeachment didn't take place until the October "Saturday Night Massacre". Several articles of impeachment were forwarded to the full House of Represnetatives the following July. So, from the start of the process to the point where the House received impeachment articles to debate -- just debate, no action taken yet -- took roughly 9 months. It is almost exactly 8 months until the next president of the United States gets sworn in. In other words, at this point, even if some groups believe George Bush committed impeachable offenses, it's not worth the effort. Ge's out of office shortly. His clock is running out.
Re-Create 68 complains that a private organization got the permit for Civic Center. Guess what? Re-Create 68 is a private organization. Other protest groups are private organizations. So, if a group goes through the permitting process, they can use the park as they see fit. I've seen private organizations use part of the park, and they were permitted during their alloted time to block access only to the attendees. There were multiple groups who wanted the park at the same time. So the city held a lottery. The DNC won. That's highly convenient, but if you think the rules were rigged, sue them. Don't threaten them, don't crash their party, don't act like bullies. You've got Lincoln Park, you've got Civic Center Park on other days. Sounds like you have plenty of opportunity for you and your allies to "peaceably assemble for redress of grievances." Maybe some of us don't take your non-violent pledge seriously because of the threats you make.
May 23, 2008
2:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Snapple writes:
Spagnuolo describes his group as "the people."
May 23, 2008
8:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Glenn writes:
We are assured a peaceful place to protest at Lincoln park because we arranged it with the state to avoid violence. The City promised to work with groups and they have not. Then they lied about us having 34 permits (not even close, I wish we had 34). Our group is a public group that will not bar anyone from going to the park when we have permits because we believe the parks belong to the people. The parks have been historically used by the community to engage in political discourse. That is where the term "get on your soapbox" originated from. The public does not have 100 million dollars and 1500 locations for events like the Dems do here in Denver. The only place we have is public spaces, The only reason why the Dems entered the lottery was to prevent the community from having a place to hold a protest. If you believe at all in the value of the First Ammendment, than you should be angered by the Dems trying to silence dissent.
May 24, 2008
8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
Just hoping RC-68 has pro bono lawyers lined up to process their freedom speakers - the quicker they are back to the street the greater their media impressions will be.
May 25, 2008
4:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
Just a simple question.
Did the legislature actually pass that law that gave business owners protection under the "Make My Day" law or did the arguments that said such rights already exist hold?
Suggest those members of R-68 trying to relive their salad days find out too. If I owned a business anywhere near downtown I'd be ready to deal with protesters in the appropriate way. Very inconvenient for said protesters to violate a paper promise made by others and get what they deserve if they destroy property.
Heck, Denver might even get a reputation for being a town where lawlessness is not only against the laws of the state, but against the laws of survival.
AS for making fools of the Democratic party, I am against it. I want a fair election without one candidate so damaged that the other side gets a walk. My greatest hope is that neither candidate gets the nod and we can get someone worthy of voting for nominated. I will not vote for McCain..ever!