Archived: Feb 18, 2008

> Editorial

Color me seditious

SA Sedition Act would have violated right to dissent, speak freely

By Chris Walker

Besides contradicting U.S. law and judicial precedent, and besides going against the intent of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the SA’s attempt at silencing criticism is a direct slap in the face of all things decent.

What is of more importance: your right to speak and exchange ideas freely or the Student Association’s (SA) right to suppress criticism?

Our “beloved” student government legislature recently passed a bill aimed at stifling criticism within the boundaries of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Fortunately, our student representatives came to their senses and did not vote to override a veto of the bill, despite the fact that 10 of them saw fit to vote in favor of that same act just one week ago.

Called the “SA Sedition Act,” the bill would have granted the SA the right to order any group or individual to cease publication if they released anything deemed slanderous or libelous against the student government. It also would have granted the SA the right to seek legal action if these groups or individuals chose not to acknowledge the order.

Besides contradicting U.S. law and judicial precedent, and besides going against the intent of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the SA’s attempt at silencing criticism is a direct slap in the face of all things decent. Within the proposed bill, the SA asserted that it is a “venerated institution critical to preserving and expanding student rights” at UWM, and then proceeded to take the right to dissent or speak freely from students!

This is the same “venerated institution” that has had leaders in the past who have (among other things) stolen thousands of dollars of student funds, left pork outside the Muslim Student Association’s doors, and now plan to remove funding to critical UWM resource centers. If the SA really wants to refer to itself as a “venerated institution” it should start off by doing something respectable for a change.

But let’s disregard the wording of the document for a moment and focus on its intent: suppressing criticism. The SA Sedition Act would have violated the First Amendment rights of all students at UWM. The bill relied on the SA to determine what is libel or slander, and to stop such acts whenever the “prestigious” body saw fit.

This was shockingly unsound legislation – in fact, there is legal precedent that prevents such acts in America. In Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court ruled that prior restraint laws – laws that grant the government the power to prevent materials from becoming public – were unconstitutional, even when governments sought to silence “malicious” publications. Except in cases of national security or inciting violence, the First Amendment was deemed more important than the government’s right to “correct the record” through preventing “malicious” publications from being available to the public.

What’s more, in later years the Court ruled that slander and libel laws don’t apply to public figures the way such laws would apply to private individuals. Public figures must prove “actual malice” – that the material released was deliberately published with the knowledge that it was false or with disregard toward knowing whether it was true or not. The SA Sedition Act neither recognized nor mentioned this fact.

The “actual malice” standard is important because it allows for the free flow of ideas to be available to the public. As Justice William J. Brennan wrote, an “erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, and it must be protected if the freedoms of expression are to have the ‘breathing space’ that they need...to survive.” Indeed, “public issues...may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

This act appropriately failed, and it would have been a complete and utter travesty if any other outcome had occurred; the rights of the student body to freely express its disdain with the Student Association must never be violated. SA President Robert Grover was right in vetoing this act last Tuesday, and he should be commended for it. The Senate should also be lauded for failing this bill’s veto override. However, those senators that initially supported this bill should explain themselves to the student constituents they attempted to silence.

If the Senate ever proposes such a piece of legislation in the future, the student body must take legal action against the SA to remove any law that conflicts with its rights. All methods would be necessary, all modes of defeating such illegal legislation essential, to ensure that this kind of blatant violation of rights never stands as law on the sidewalks of UWM.

The fact that the SA would want to (and, for a time, choose to) restrain the freedoms granted to UWM students as citizens of the United States is further proof that new leadership is needed within the governing body of our campus. This April, please consider voting against the authors of this act, as well as those who voted for it. Our freedoms may depend on it.

> Comments

RS on Feb 18, 2008 at 01:40 AM:

Chris,

Once again, you over hype and clearly show your bias against Student Association leaders with the veracity typical of this publication.

Sure, the "Sedition Act" is stupid. But let’s look at some of your other statements in reference to the SA.

"This is the same “venerated institution” that has had leaders in the past who have (among other things) stolen thousands of dollars of student funds, (THIS WAS RUSS RUEDEN WHO LEFT SA OVER ONE YEAR AGO) left pork outside the Muslim Student Association’s doors, (CHRIS VEGA WHO LEFT SA IN 2005) and now plan to remove funding to critical UWM resource centers. (IT’S ABOUT TIME AND THEY SHOULD CUT OTHER ENTITIES AND WASTEFULL SPENDING ALSO!!!) If the SA really wants to refer to itself as a “venerated institution” it should start off by doing something respectable for a change (THEY DID GET RID OF THE TWO PEOPLE WHO’S ACTIONS YOU REFERED TOO. THE CUTS ARE GREAT. OVERALL SA IS TYPICALLY DOING GOOD THINGS.)

Your entire rant against the SA is based on legislation that did not pass. I do not see one editorial in this week’s addition that has something even close to a balanced point of view. Your editorials are left of Lenin and this is clearly not what the students of UWM voted for last spring. The legislation produced by members of the SA Senate is clearly aimed at the shoddy reporting and biased editorials appearing in the UWM Post. With the lack of balance in this newspaper who can blame them!

Veronica Smith on Feb 18, 2008 at 04:04 AM:

Way to write this after everyone else has covered it bro.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 18, 2008 at 07:36 AM:

You have to admit this whole situation is funny as hell though.

Veronica Smith on Feb 18, 2008 at 08:26 AM:

Funny as hell?

Stupid as hell. The Post as proven that it just has a bunch of OCD wannabe journalists running around spouting off the same article in 4 or 5 different versions. They all think they've got some new and scathing opinion, but it's just beating another dead horse. You'd think with all of societies issues out there today they'd find something better to whine about other than boring students to death with the same story, but in different versions.

We get it you don't like it, who cares?! We don't need article after article on the same thing.

Thank you for another useless edition of The Post, you continue to sit there and discredit yourselves more every week.

lame.

FK on Feb 18, 2008 at 08:45 AM:

My God, it seems like any time anyone says anything in this newspaper it's somehow 'irrelevant' and 'pointless to debate'. The fact that this even came to a vote speaks volumes about our student government, and so I do not think it's irrelevant. So what if it was covered a bit late? It should be covered, if anything out of date automatically becomes pointless after a certain time no one would study history or write about new discoveries in regards to past events. The mention of past indiscretions by SA members is meant to illustrate a history of corrupt actions by its members. If you think that something loses any real relevance after a certain time, I strongly suggest that you simply stop reading anything, ever.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 18, 2008 at 11:54 AM:

"Stupid as hell. The Post as proven that it just has a bunch of OCD wannabe journalists running around spouting off the same article in 4 or 5 different versions."

Don't count me in with them. I'm not planning to right an article in the same mold as the other versions. I even don't fully agree with those articles.

Chris Walker on Feb 18, 2008 at 12:06 PM:

RS,

I do respect your opinion, believe it or not, but wonder why you do not take the time to respect mine and the several students within UWM who see the Student Association as an institution that is in need of retuning. I am not specifically saying that members must be removed, but rather that their priorities may need a reexamination.

So, yes, I mentioned a few of the past instances that were disturbing within the SA’s tenure while I have been a student here. Without naming any names, I mentioned the actions of past SA leaders that I found deplorable, and certainly unrepresentative of the student body. I did so with the intent of showing how this institution (the SA) has continued to, year after year, surprise the student body with these actions, which is why I included the sentence that the SA should do something “respectable for a change.” As you mentioned, the SA did remove those members; however, removal of disrespectful representation, though admirable, does not solve the problems of the student body.

Instead of creating a bill of importance, for instance, the SA has wasted its and the students’ time in creating such an appalling bill.

Regarding your “point of view” issues, objectivity is in the eyes of the beholder. This is especially true in regards to an editorial section – the section that I run and write for. My writers are certainly welcome to write about supporting this bill and why they might feel it is necessary, thus allowing the “balance” issue you bring about to be addressed. None, however, were concerned enough to write about it. They are still welcome to do so, just as you are welcome to writing a letter to the editor about this matter. You cannot, however, blame me for a lack of balance when no other writer desired to write a balanced counter-opinion. Just because my opinion goes against a good number of others’ opinions doesn’t mean I am going to hold back on publishing my writing. That would be absurd; we’d publish maybe two editorials a week if we did it that way, and it would certainly be a bland section if there were two or more articles for every issue brought up.

Our news department covered this event in a very objective way. The editorial section, however, is entitled to write its opinion – whether that is extreme left or right is up to the reader to determine.

I have writers from all political ideologies, ranging from middle left and middle right, to the extremes on both ends. If you view my editorials as “left of Lenin,” that is your belief. As for what the students at UWM voted for last spring, I believe it was a group that called itself “Students United For Change” – however, I doubt that the student body envisioned this type of change, where the SA could stifle the liberties of the students it governs. Even the presidential candidate who represented that "change" found this bill worthy of his veto pen.

On a side note: libel laws state that actual malice is necessary (which is stated in my article) for any public figure to sue another person or entity. Even if the UWM Post did “shoddy reporting” as you claim it has, it must be proven that this reporting was done with the intent of harming the entity to which it has been reporting on. The UWM Post news department prides itself on attaining the best information possible for its readers. Any “shoddy reporting” is not the fault of theirs, as they do their best to get both sides, when possible, heard.

Any biases on my part stem from skepticism I have towards the SA for acts it plans on implementing and the various activities of leaders past (and present, it would appear). While it may be true that not all legislation passed by the SA is horrible, the fact is that the legislation discussed within my article WAS a gross misuse of government power.

Additionally, you took the sixty-eight words I wrote about the SA’s troubled past out of context and made it sound like I was blaming the current incarnation of the governing body for all those deeds. I was not; I was merely pointing out the irony in the wording of the SA Sedition Act, which “recognized” how “venerated” the institution was, using it as justification to stifle speech of students at UWM, an act I find to be just as deplorable as the acts committed by those previous leaders of the SA.

Am I over hyping? In your view, I am. You’re entitled to that opinion. I hope you will learn to respect mine.

As for the comments regarding my tardiness in writing this article: we are a weekly newspaper. When the Senate initially passed this act, I had no time to write about it (nor did any of my writers) before the next issue came out. Of course, the timing of my story in no way deters the importance of it; speech rights must be defended, no matter how timely one can or cannot be. This was the first time an editorial about this act had been written by anyone at the Post.

I do not write this response with the intent of upsetting you, or out of any ill contempt I have for any of you commenting on this website. I typically like to stay out of the comment threads as I feel I present my opinion fairly well for those who read it, and try to allow others to voice their opinions as well, without my interference. However, I felt it necessary to respond to these comments because I feel you misinterpreted a section of my article. I also wanted to set the record straight, as far as “biases” within the newspaper are concerned – I do, after all, write for an opinion section.

I implore you to write a letter to the editor should you still feel compelled to discuss the issue at hand, or any biases you believe you see in the paper. It is your right to state your case if you want to be heard, and I promise that, if written well and coherently, I will place your letter of concern within the paper and allow the readers to decide if your opinions are warranted.

I hope that you don’t take any offence to what I have written here, and look forward to any response you might give.

Take care, Chris Walker