Thomas Jefferson Center Gives Annual Muzzle Awards

April 10, 2002 9:34 PM

Thomas Jefferson Center Gives Annual Muzzle Awards
The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has announced the winners of their annual Muzzle Awards, which are given out to "those who have forgotten Mr. Jefferson's warning that freedom of expression cannot be limited without being lost." The lucky winners this year include (among others) a school principal who refused to let students form a club opposed to the war in Afghanistan, an Indiana County for charging a man with flag-burning, Brown University students who stole 4,000 copies of the college paper because they didn't like an advertisement, and Donald Rumsfeld for his severe limitations on media coverage of the war in Afghanistan. Are there any other outrageous cases of censorship this year that the Muzzles should have included? Are all of the winners worthy of ridicule?
posted by waldo (22 comments total)

How about John McCain and Russell Feingold for muzzling rich people that want to express their political views by making large unregulated contributions to national political parties?

Or so the ACLU would have you think.
posted by boltman at 11:05 PM on April 10, 2002

Re: stealing papers to suppress speech

Bijan Parsia's stomach-turning defense of exactly that practice helped me realize that Monkeyfist was not even useful as a landmark outside my own politics.
posted by NortonDC at 4:23 AM on April 11, 2002

John Ashcroft for many reasons, particularly since 9/11, however to name one deserving instance that is representative at so many levels: his getting an erection of a blue curtain to hide the Spirit of Justice when he gives press conferences.
posted by mischief at 5:03 AM on April 11, 2002

Donald Rumsfeld for his severe limitations on media coverage of the war in Afghanistan.

That's right, each soldier should be accompanied by a camera crew from now on. God forbid we should deny somebody a front row seat to the action.

Get real
posted by a3matrix at 5:16 AM on April 11, 2002

NortonDC: I would agree with you that the Brown students made a bad choice there, but the oft-made claim that there was some denial of Horowitz's free speech rights by those universities that declined to run the ad in the first place was equally ridiculous.
posted by boltman at 5:26 AM on April 11, 2002

a3matrix: I agree with that position. We know that there is a battle going on over there, but we, as the general public, do not need to know every little detail of the operations as they unfold. This is how it's been in the past, and this is likely how it will continue to be in the future.
posted by JaxJaggywires at 5:57 AM on April 11, 2002

boltman - Uh, ok. Did I say differently?
posted by NortonDC at 8:01 AM on April 11, 2002

a3matrix: The actual report, which I'm sure you read before you replied, says that after Grenada the press and the Pentagon had come to a workable agreement as to how conflicts should be covered, and that Rumsfeld did not live up to the agreement in Afghanistan. Do you have an actual comment on that, or would you like to throw some more silly allegations around instead?
posted by feckless at 8:17 AM on April 11, 2002

I have read the report, and I still agree with a3matrix.

Speaking from personal experience as a Marine Corps veteran, when we are involved in an operation, we don't want idle bodies hanging around, particularly ones who do not have the security clearance to hear most of the information that is bantered around before, during and after an operation.

I am risking my ass so Americans can enjoy their freedoms, so don't risk my getting my ass shot by telling you how I go about doing it at the time that I am performing it.
posted by mischief at 8:38 AM on April 11, 2002

NortonDC: Yes, that Monkeyfist article made me queasy, as well. I am so often astounded by people's inability to recognise that their reaction would be 180° different if they happened to agree with the opinion being censored. Pardon me, not censored -- creatively and legitimately removed from communal persual.

I mean Parsia actually slyly referred to needing the paper for a hypothetical bar-b-que. There's a nice workaround to book burning. "Hey, I acquired the books legitimately and was feeling a chill. Not censorship, just generating a few BTUs..." Works well until you notice your neighbor toasting his marshmallows over a copy of Monkeyfist, don't it?
posted by umberto at 8:38 AM on April 11, 2002

For the anally inclined, yes I realize monkeyfist is just a website so that would involve burning a PC which would lead to horrible tasting marshmallows. A little license here, eh?
posted by umberto at 8:41 AM on April 11, 2002

Did I say differently?

Sorry NortonDC, I didn't mean to imply that you did. The link in the FPP praises (wrongly in my opinion) the newpaper for promoting free speech by printing the ad. I was responding to that as well as your comment.

The Brown students were stupid mostly because they did exactly what Horowitz was hoping they would, thus giving him the publicity he so desperately craves and is so undeserving of. The correct response to David Horowitz is to ignore him.

I am so often astounded by people's inability to recognise that their reaction would be 180° different if they happened to agree with the opinion being censored

I recognize it, and I am quite comfortable with it as long as it's not the government that's doing the censoring. There are some opinions that are so clearly wrong and so clearly offensive to the targeted community that any value to publishing them is outweighed by the, humilation, pain, anger, offense etc. that will be caused by their publication. Does anyone really believe that the Horowitz article promoted any serious discussion of the reparation issue on these campuses? If you read the article, it is calculated to outrage, not to provoke thought. Censor away, I say!
posted by boltman at 9:02 AM on April 11, 2002

boltman - The newspapers don't have any legal obligation to carry anything, but if I were you, I'd rethink the idea that any censorship is A-OK so long as it doesn't come from .gov, especially in our era of overarching media congolerates.
posted by NortonDC at 9:13 AM on April 11, 2002

especially in our era of overarching media congolerates

a fair point, but I would argue that the proper response is to regulate the market to prevent or reverse the conglomeration of these companies rather than worry about censorship once they are conglomerated.
posted by boltman at 9:34 AM on April 11, 2002

John Ashcroft for many reasons, particularly since 9/11, however to name one deserving instance that is representative at so many levels: his getting an erection of a blue curtain to hide the Spirit of Justice when he gives press conferences.

To be fair, wasn't the real reason he did it because photographers were consistently taking pictures so there was always a pair of nude breasts hovering over his head? I can see getting tired of that.
posted by straight at 9:45 AM on April 11, 2002

mischief: Maybe it's just me, but when I think of how wars should be covered I'm not *primarily* thinking Geraldo style get up to the front lines and show off stuff. It makes for good television, but as you say, it can interfere with operations--and frankly, I'm not sure its usually very important (Although sometimes front line reporting can be very important.)

Access to behind the scenes paperwork--while yes, being sensible about sensitive information--thorough and informative briefings, etc. can be far more interesting and necessary, and I think the Pentagon should have the responsibility to provide as much information as possible without endagering operations. It's Rumsfeld's default position of not communicating certain things that's the issue, and it parallels Ashcroft's similarly position regarding Freedom of Information Act requests.
posted by feckless at 10:22 AM on April 11, 2002

Previous MeFi discussion of the Brown U. yahoos.

I'm curious as to why you think that a newspaper's failure to run an ad constitutes censorship. While failure to run an ad may be closeminded and certainly doesn't strike me as participation in the marketplace of ideas, I'm not sure that it meets my minimum threshhold for concern the way, say, squelching news unfavorable to a major advertiser would be. Should we obligate publishers to run ads by extremist groups (or even graphic ads by shock-tactic groups like PeTA or Operation Rescue) that would alienate their readership? What about Holocaust deniers? Should the Washington Times be forced to run anti-Moonie ads?

Some efforts to get ads run seem designed to give the prospective advertiser free publicity (see Horowitz or the continuing efforts of the Buy Nothing Day folks to get an ad on one of the major networks). I think these ads should be run; neither one seems patently untrue or offensive, and I think exposing Horowitz's arguments for the paper-thin shell they are is a mitzvah. But when the Princetonian dealt with Horowitz in what I think was the optimal way -- running the ad while simultaneously running an editorial stating their reasoning, disagreement with the substance of the advertisement, and general negative feelings about Horowitz -- he refused to pay up, so maybe they shouldn't have bothered.
posted by snarkout at 12:00 PM on April 11, 2002

snarkout - "you" who?
posted by NortonDC at 12:43 PM on April 11, 2002

straight: So why didn't Aschcroft just go somewhere else for his photo shoots? One of the levels of which I was thinking was his getting photographed in front of his own work of censorship.

feckless: I agree that more info should have come from the top of the bureaucracy; my comments were aimed at those wanting to place journalists so close to the action. As for parallels with Ashcroft, I don't see reporters clamoring to be included in daily FBI operations.
posted by mischief at 1:21 PM on April 11, 2002

The Brown students were stupid mostly because they did exactly what Horowitz was hoping they would

This is a disclaimer that probably does not need to be made, but I’ll say it just for the record. Brown has about 6,000 students and only a few hundred of them participated in the incident. I assure you, they in no way represented the opinions of the vast majority of the student population – I know, I was there. Having said that, I completely agree with you, boltman, what these students did is precisely the wrong way to deal with the situation.

Another thing, there is a little bit more to the situation than has been mentioned. The Brown University Daily Herald is affiliated with the university, even if they do not get any funding from the school. As such, many people claim, the newspaper has a responsibility to the university community that a regular newspaper would not. For example, if someone got on the roof of some building on campus and started shouting racial obscenities, say, the university would have that person removed from campus, and if it had been a student, that student would have been punished somehow. This would happen simply because Brown is a private organization and has set certain behavioral standards for itself and anyone on campus. If you don’t like the standards you don’t have to go there. The same, some say, applies to the newspaper – it should not print material that is designed to offend, or stop claiming affiliation with the university.

Having said that, it is debatable whether the ad in question was designed just to offend or to simply state a controversial political opinion. I’d say that it was just a political statement, though one phrased a bit provocatively. I also agree with the newspaper’s decision to run the ad, and even if some students wanted to protest the newspaper’s decision, theft is not the answer. But, I just wanted to point out that there are important issues surrounding this case that had not been brought out.
posted by epimorph at 2:06 PM on April 11, 2002

There are some opinions that are so clearly wrong and so clearly offensive to the targeted community that any value to publishing them is outweighed by the, humilation, pain, anger, offense etc. that will be caused by their publication.

Say, for instance, an announcement of a gay pride parade in Orange County? A lot of people would clearly be willing to go to the mat for that one, despite (possibly valid) protests from the community that such a parade would be held only to shock the good burghers down to their complacent toes. Many of the stalwarts of the community would no doubt feel that they had been baselessly angered, offended, and humiliated.

There are very few things that are "clearly wrong" to all members of a community. That is sort of the basis of a democracy and a legacy of a melting pot society, although some would have that change.

I am sure I would find offensive many of the views held by the self-righteous students of Brown. But I would try to do that thing...oh, what is it called when you do it to people like Horowitz who are trying to draw attention to themselves and it doesn't work and so they go away? Oh, right...ignore them.
posted by umberto at 2:14 PM on April 11, 2002

There are very few things that are "clearly wrong" to all members of a community

I'm not saying it has to be "clearly wrong" to all members of the community for me to support private censorship, just that it has to be "clearly wrong" to me.
posted by boltman at 4:32 PM on April 11, 2002