Did McSwane’s column, then, fall within the bounds of the First Amendment? The answer is yes, it did...sort of.

When J. David McSwane, editor-in-chief of the Rocky Mountain Collegian at Colorado State University, wrote his column late last month, he created a controversy that sparked debate across the country.

The sentiments within the column are shared by college students (and many other Americans for that matter) throughout the country: “Taser this: Fuck Bush.”

The words seem innocent enough, despite their vulgarity. In a society that values freedoms, the ability to speak freely seemed to be a justification for the printing of McSwane’s words.

With members from both parties seemingly censoring our freedom to protest their actions in a public sphere, the column’s advice to “taser” the author shows that he’d rather take the pain of such a device than give up his freedom.

But controversy followed in the “purple” state of Colorado. Many advertisers dropped their financial support for the publication, costing the school and the paper thousands of dollars.

The College Republicans at CSU called for McSwane’s dismissal, and last Thursday the board that oversees the Collegian called his actions “unethical and unprofessional.” They stopped short, however, of firing the controversial editor-in-chief.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ensures that every person has a right to free speech. This right does come with restrictions, as interpreted within the Supreme Court (for example, you can’t yell “FIRE!” in a move theater, causing a riot that could possibly harm someone).

However, these restrictions are only in place to ensure that your freedom of speech does not interfere with your other freedoms.

Did McSwane’s column, then, fall within the bounds of the First Amendment? The answer is yes, it did...sort of.

The paper itself is protected and can say whatever it wants so long as it is factual (obviously, circumstances of libel would not be protected). McSwane’s article utilized an attitude felt by many young people within this country: A president who virtually none of us respect is conducting business in a way that is disrespectful to his constituency and his office.

But McSwane was responsible to his paper as well, and thus to the proprietors of his paper. Since the school is in charge of the paper, it makes sense that his job could be placed on the line. We may not agree with their action, but had the board that oversees the paper decided to fire McSwane, the decision would ultimately have been legal.

That is not to say, however, that such matters of speech should not be taken lightly. If market principles can dictate when a person should be fired – such as Don Imus, who was fired from CBS Radio after offending many listeners with a racial comment – then the same market principles should be applied to ensure that a person within a certain medium stay in it.

Looking to the future, J. David McSwane and other writers should remember that though their rights as writers are fully protected by the U.S. Constitution, their rights as employees dictate that they should be held accountable for their actions.

Yes, George W. Bush is, in my mind and in the minds of several other Americans, a terrible president. The words that were published express that sentiment. But if you can’t print those words without being able to face up to the consequences that they will bring, then you should recognize the awful truth: Your job lies in the balance of the invisible hand of economics.

> Comments