The issue of freedom of speech is an eternal one. Censorship occurred in ancient Greece, 1644, and today around the world. The underlying issue behind censorship is the question of who gets to be the judge of what’s allowable and what’s not? And why are we not given the choice to decide what’s morally right and what’s not? No one is incorruptible, and everyone has differing opinions of what crosses the line and what just toes the line.
The fact that Lipscomb uses a filter for the internet, and most likely censures many of its articles submitted for posting in The Babbler made me think about what other university campuses do to suppress the freedom of speech. One such article I discovered addressed the issue in a straightforward manner: “Free speech at public universities and colleges is at once the most obvious and the most paradoxical of constitutional principles.”
Students are here to get an education, to think freely and to question all. But to repress the freedom of expression is to make us into “backward scholars,” as Milton so eloquently put it. God left us the freedom of choice, and we should be allowed to choose what is right and wrong, even when presented with not so “good” material. Perhaps my favorite quote in all of Areopagitica is this: “They are not skilful considerers of human things, who imagine to remove sin by removing the matter of sin; for, besides that it is a huge heap increasing under the very act of diminishing.” By not allowing us to access or view certain materials or topics, it only encourages us to be ingenious in the way we search for it and feeds the curiosity behind it.
One university, I found, even banned the freedom of speech. In order to submit anything for print, a student would have to submit a request weeks beforehand. Universities may think they are protecting us, but the reality is, we are ADULTS and how does being on a university campus change that fact? We have adult minds, and by stifling us and treating us like children, universities are doing nothing but the opposite of what they are intended for: the repression of education.
“For opinion in good men is but knowledge in the making.”
Articles I mentioned:
http://www.petesodyssey.org/node/173
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/overview.aspx
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that it's ridiculous that colleges feel the need to censor websites and articles for the school newspaper. Since we are adults, we should be able to decide what is a good idea to say or look at on our own. Problems with internet filters arise when students need to research something, such as a drug, for a school project. I run into problems when I have to read a story for my comp class that has a great amount of symbolism, which I don't understand. I have to look on the internet for the meanings of the symbols, but sometimes, the only websites that come up are essays written by other people. These pages are blocked, probably to prevent plagiarism, but what's to prevent us from plagiarizing other sources?
ReplyDeleteI think that censorship of school papers is wrong. We are citizens of the United States, so we should have the right of freedom of speech, even in school. If there is an issue that we think needs to be addressed, we should be able to bring it up in the newspaper without it being suppressed. As college students, we tend to be very vocal about our concerns, and a newspaper is probably one of the best ways to bring up those concerns. We could go so far as "to liberate some turkeys," before Thanksgiving as in T.C. Boyle's "Carnal Knowledge" if we are animal rights activists, but a more legal way to get our points across is to write an article about it in the school paper. So, to whoever decides that college students should have our articles cut out of papers and websites blocked, would you rather we post our thoughts on billboards or t.v. for everyone to see, or would you rather we go about things calmly and just write them in the school paper?
There's a scene in the film Saving Private Ryan in which an enemy soldier very calmly and gently stabs one protagonist through the heart after a rather exhaustive fight. He soothes and consoles the man as he shoves his blade ever deeper into the man’s flesh, telling him it will be easiest if he doesn't struggle, and merely accepts the gravity of his impending death. Meanwhile, one of the dying man's comrades stands in the hall, heavily armed but shaking with fright. He hears what's going on and does nothing about it. The enemy assassin passes him as he exits the building, smirking at the soldier because he knows that the man's cowardice has crippled him from any action. He isn’t a threat, so he lives.
ReplyDeleteThis is an illustration (albeit hyperbolic) of what censorship is doing to the academic mind. Censoring has covered the mouth of potential education, gently stifling all protests with promises that it’s all for the best. As Christians, we’re called to higher standards of behavior, so, in some ways, the censorship of some sites is beneficial. However, when we are unable to read other individuals’ work online, it really puts a limit on our potential. We, as academic minds, have the ability to intervene. We have the intelligence and, more importantly, the discretion to use the media to help us. Don't submit to the intellectual blockade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuxpSSJBwW0
In regards to the internet filter here at Lipscomb, I find it rather irritating that some of wonderful online resources are unavailable to us simply because a system deemed that information inappropriate for our viewing. I also think it is bad for the school in that few perspective students want to hear that any research they might be doing could be hampered by a seemingly arbitrary sorting of what information is acceptable or not. But the fact is, Lipscomb is a private university affiliated with the churches of Christ, and therefore has the right to restrict whatever information it deems disharmonious with its own principles.
ReplyDeleteAs a student at Lipscomb, I do have issues with our current filtering system, but not with the idea of a filtering system. I hate the fact that students can't research things like the effects of drugs for a research paper, but I am glad that the student population is not allowed access to pornographic material while on campus. What I mean to say is that my biggest problem is with the implementation of the system rather than the system itself. For instance, I think that if some of the parameters of what got blocked and what were lightened to allow things like alcohol and drugs to be researched, it would make for a more scholar friendly campus and at the same time preserve the moral integrity of the campus. (Because let's face it, how can you go out and drink or get high on the internet?) Also I think that the technology needs to be improved so that articles that merely include the word sex don't get blocked. But overall, I think the system should stay in place.
I strongly agree with this post-- Milton is right to say that censoring the students is not the same as removing the matter for censorship! At best, Lipscomb's censorship of the subjects it sees fit to censor merely REMOVES any moral responsibility from the Christian environment of the campus. Rather than training us to behave responsibly when given the choice whether or not to look at nasty things on the internet, they are simply removing the choice. How is that at all educational? Shouldn't that be the environment of a university (especially a Christian one)? I remind you that God himself has given us the free will to determine our moral standards instead of removing or censoring all of the evils in the world.
ReplyDeleteSome might argue that because we pay to attend Lipscomb and a "Christian education" that we are also paying for a more Christian-like environment. That's all well and good, and that is what I'm paying Lipscomb for, but censoring the internet and the newspaper is a direct step in the wrong direction if we are to receive a Christian education.
Cenorship is not a good thing, in almost any situation. I'm not sure of the validity of this, but I've been told Lipscomb uses the same software to censor ths Internet as Communist China. Now isn't that an interesting relation? Censorship, at least for adults, which we are, retards free thought, educatian, and learning. On this point, I agree with others.
ReplyDeleteBut to say students should be able to say whatever they want in a school newspaper is lunacy. That's no longer free speech. The school's name is on it. The school's reputation is at stake with the production of its paper.
If the students behind the school paper were to produce a comic or article that was highly offensive to an ethnic group or political figure, the school is held responsible, and to some extent legally liable. Additionally, this holds true with illegal torrenting of music/movies/whatever. The school, who provides the Internet service for the campus, is legally liable for all damages due to piracy. This isn't an issue of ethics, it's an issue of financial and legal common sense. You don't let your idiot cousin drive your car without supervision when he has a high tendency to wreck. Why? Because it's your car! You get stuck with the bill! Is that infringing on his rights? Of course not!
Now, not allowing students to view a website that sells pipes for smoking because it's "ethically wrong" is also lunacy. However, I can't say it's a bad thing for our school, or any school to look out for itself legally and financially. Censorship of the school's own resources is perfectly acceptable. We have the rigt to write and submit our fiery critique of society to another paper, or pirate music (well, not really the legal right, but the ability...) with someone else's Internat access. There's no freedom of speech infringments there, whatsoever.
I don't think the issue of freedom of speech will ever be solved unless the world somehow become a Christian Utopia in which everyone believes the same things and can all agree on what they should and shouldn't say. However, I do agree that it is wrong for the school to censor the internet for the very reason that was stated: it removes the opportunity for us to make the right choice (which God created us to do) and fuels the curiosity of many, which only makes the problem worse. If we were meant to be unable to make our own choices, we would be barely more than zombies who all believed in the same things because we had to. This leads me back to my first point (obviously). There is nothing that is truly ok about censoring the internet here at Lipscomb.
ReplyDelete