[ToTheLeft]

LUconn,

I was responding to TalkTheLeft, who conjectured that Roose didn't answer the questions.

Really, these are pretty basic ideas I'm pushing for. No one agrees with freedom of speech in the campus newspaper? You'd prefer that skepticism about the school be suppressed just so that you don't feel as if you're money's going to a platform for a "snotty nosed kid"? Really? And you're lecturing me about careers in journalism?

I'll say it again. Who cares if other schools censor their paper? That's a distraction. Now, back to Liberty's censorship. I haven't heard a defense. Is there one? Do any of you agree with me? Or do I just not live on your dorm hall so everyone's against me?

Every school censors the paper. The same way the government censors the things that they publish. That's how large organizations work. Where have you been?

I am okay that the Champion is censored. I am not up in arms about our freedoms because, frankly, I never expected to have a paper on campus that was completely telling of every detail of the school.

[Ed Dantes]

I'll say it again. Who cares if other schools censor their paper? That's a distraction. Now, back to Liberty's censorship. I haven't heard a defense. Is there one? Do any of you agree with me? Or do I just not live on your dorm hall so everyone's against me?

Fine, here's a defense.

You asked a question about what do evangelicals need to do to make themselves look better in the eyes of the mainstream media. Keep that in mind while I relate this anecdote.

About 10 years ago, before the censorship of LU papers, some professor quoted Salon magazine in an article for the National Liberty journal. The article quoted cited how one of the Teletubbies was created as a gay icon. In short: Salon Magazine wrote that Tinky Winky was a gay icon, some professor quoted this article in the National LIberty Journal. Next thing you know, the entire evangelical community is smeared as reactionary bigots who get into homophobic rages over something as mundane as a children's television show. Falwell was maligned personally because of something that had his name attached to it.

Look, I hate the censors. I wrote for the newspaper for two years and ran afoul of them (and to answer your 'what are your journalistic credentials' question, the 'best sports writer in the State of Virginia' and 'best sports editor in the State of Virginia' awards I earned while writing for the aforementioned newspaper should put that to rest). I had to battle with my editor every week, and once had to have the President of the school sign off on one of my articles for publication because a Vice President and the Athletic Director tried to spike it. I know what the censors are. I despise them. But I also know WHY they're there. And if you think that Liberty is unique in that aspect, then you've got another thing coming.

Did you ever think that the question 'what do evangelicals need to do to make themselves look better in the eyes of the mainstream media' necessarily mandates that someone control the message?

[Liberty Freelance]

Sly Fox and ToTheLeft,

I think SF said he is a journalist. Either way, you're misunderstanding of the system is frightening. Of course, if I worked for a major publication I would expect the newspaper to censor my individual articles. The Champion's editors should do the same thing. But the U.S. government and Liberty's administration should not censor it. The administration already has a news outlet. I read it on the website all the time. What I'm talking about is if the United States, which is the equivalent of Liberty University to the Champion, censored newspapers. Censoring the student newspaper is akin to the U.S. government censoring newspapers, not to the editors determining what gets published. The student newspaper is a student-run paper. The writers there are supposed to learn how to criticize authority figures even if it's uncomfortable and looked down on. It's not supposed to be a mouthpiece of the administration. Some commenters here pointed me to the "Truth @ LU." That got banned on campus. That's akin to President Obama banning the Wall Street Journal. So the analogy to my blog is a weak one. The school censors the information the students receive. It's not just the Champion. The school stifles other speech on campus as well.

Ed,

I'm not calling your bona fides into question. I'm challenging what you've written on here. And your sports-writing awards, though commendable, are irrelevant to what we're talking about. I am glad to hear that you put up such a fight for your independence. I'm a little taken aback that you haven't jumped on board and defended our blog, though. Based on what you just wrote, it appears as though we have a lot in common.

Also, I don't understand your Teletubby reference. I know the story. It's part of the disclaimer fiasco. But I don't see how it justifies censorship. My question was a two-part question. In Roose's answer, he touched on what Liberty could do as well as what journalists could do. He talked about how some of them sneer at religion, and he discouraged it. I think your point's that no matter what Liberty does, people will be biased against evangelicalism. That might be true. Or it might not. That's what I wanted him to talk about in his answer. And he did.

All I can glean from your Teletubby anecdote is that people need to be less biased and publications should meticulously edit their work. Why would anything be censored because of the incident?

I don't think Liberty's unique in censoring its "student" paper. I've been repeating on here that it doesn't matter. That everyone else is doing it isn't really much of a justification for Liberty doing it. Do you understand that? I've said it several times on this thread.

I don't understand what you're getting at in your last sentence.

[RagingTireFire]

This is nothing new. About once every three years somebody comes along and think they're going to challenge the Liberty system. I know that because I was one. In any event, generally, those people usually project at least some semblance of logic and solid argument. However -- LF? Dude? -- you're so far off that it's actually amusing.

Censoring the student newspaper is akin to the U.S. government censoring newspapers, not to the editors determining what gets published.

They're not even remotely the same thing. Daily newspapers are a private enterprise while the Champion is a publication owned and operated by LU.

The student newspaper is a student-run paper.

See above.

The writers there are supposed to learn how to criticize authority figures even if it's uncomfortable and looked down on.

This is a common -- and completely inaccurate -- view of the role of the press. The press is there to report on whatever events are deemed newsworthy. In the case of the Champion, that decision is made by the university.

Some commenters here pointed me to the "Truth @ LU." That got banned on campus. That's akin to President Obama banning the Wall Street Journal. So the analogy to my blog is a weak one.

Again, not even remotely similar. If you're going to write for a living -- or even a hobby -- I suggest you get a better handle on the use of analogy.

It's not just the Champion. The school stifles other speech on campus as well.

Regardless of your view on "stifling free speech", the university is well within its rights to make whatever policies it likes regarding censorship on campus. Why? Because they own it.

[justagirl]

I'll say it again. Who cares if other schools censor their paper? That's a distraction. Now, back to Liberty's censorship. I haven't heard a defense. Is there one? Do any of you agree with me? Or do I just not live on your dorm hall so everyone's against me?

Fine, here's a defense.

You asked a question about what do evangelicals need to do to make themselves look better in the eyes of the mainstream media. Keep that in mind while I relate this anecdote.

About 10 years ago, before the censorship of LU papers, some professor quoted Salon magazine in an article for the National Liberty journal. The article quoted cited how one of the Teletubbies was created as a gay icon. In short: Salon Magazine wrote that Tinky Winky was a gay icon, some professor quoted this article in the National LIberty Journal. Next thing you know, the entire evangelical community is smeared as reactionary bigots who get into homophobic rages over something as mundane as a children's television show. Falwell was maligned personally because of something that had his name attached to it.

Look, I hate the censors. I wrote for the newspaper for two years and ran afoul of them (and to answer your 'what are your journalistic credentials' question, the 'best sports writer in the State of Virginia' and 'best sports editor in the State of Virginia' awards I earned while writing for the aforementioned newspaper should put that to rest). I had to battle with my editor every week, and once had to have the President of the school sign off on one of my articles for publication because a Vice President and the Athletic Director tried to spike it. I know what the censors are. I despise them. But I also know WHY they're there. And if you think that Liberty is unique in that aspect, then you've got another thing coming.

Did you ever think that the question 'what do evangelicals need to do to make themselves look better in the eyes of the mainstream media' necessarily mandates that someone control the message?

[rueful]

Wow, freelance you really dont get it. Ive seen you change your stance on different things multiple times on this page.

I honestly dont think there is anyone on campus who doesnt have at least a few complaints about the school. Id say every student understands the school is not perfect.

But at the same time, I think the majority of students here understand what Liberty is all about, the vision that Doc had for the school, and were willing to buy into that and carry it on. So we fully support our University, and some of us who really understand what its all about, find the university amazing.

I can understand, however, how some people who dont understand why LU does the things they do would hate it and think its the worst university in the world, but I would hope they would be mature enough to make the right decision when they ask themselves "Should I just transfer to a school I dont hate, or should I stick it out and release my frustrations through an anonymous blog that attacks and undermines the schools everymove?"

[RubberMallet]

this just in, liberty freelance interviews this guy

[Ed Dantes]

Also, I don't understand your Teletubby reference. I know the story. It's part of the disclaimer fiasco. But I don't see how it justifies censorship. (snip) I don't understand what you're getting at in your last sentence.

Try harder. It'll dawn on you later.

(and with that, I'm done for this discussion).

[phoenix]

I give this whole thing a solid meh.

I don't like censorship of student papers. The problem is, the whole thing is approached as if Liberty is unique in this practice. Rather than fight censorship at a small, independent, religious school, why aren't people fighting it in more high profile schools where the precedent could really change things nationally? The problem is that college students, for the most part, don't really care about their school newspapers. I think I read five editions of The Champion while I was at Liberty.

My criticism with the blog is simply content related. I still think it's a bad idea to expect your readers to contribute your content. I still think that when the majority of your content is simply cutting and pasting with no comment from the blog owners, people have no reason to read it. Yes, bloggers cut and paste all the time. But we also add our own spin on the things we cut and paste. The only time I haven't done that is when I did something called The Blogroll Cruise, which was simply pointing people to articles that I had read and thought were interesting. And even then, I didn't really cut and paste -- I threw in a link, and said what I thought of it in about three sentences. (I'd provide a link, but something is seriously screwed up with my blog right now, and it's not available.) The majority of the content on any blog (except for scrapers and link farms) has to be original content for people to actually care enough about it to read it regularly.

As far as The Economis goes,

The main reason for anonymity, however, is a belief that what is written is more important than who writes it. As Geoffrey Crowther, editor from 1938 to 1956, put it, anonymity keeps the editor 'not the master but the servant of something far greater than himself. You can call that ancestor-worship if you wish, but it gives to the paper an astonishing momentum of thought and principle.

What is written is not more important than who writes it. What is written today is only as credible as the person who writes it. Anonymity means that nobody is responsible for their own opinions, and so anybody can write anything. In a few clicks, you can find out anything you want about me, just from this forum (or could, if my blog was up and running right now). You can read my previous posts and find out a lot about me, including my full name and my general geographical location. I'm not anonymous, and will not be. I stand behind what I say, even when I say something stupid. I take ownership of what I say, and what I believe. The idea that a paper is more principled because you don't know who is doing the writing is ludicrous.

[Liberty Freelance]

Enlightening, Ed. I presume you don't understand your last sentence either.

RagingTireFire,

If the Champion is in fact a faculty publication, then where's the student newspaper? If the Champion is billed as a mouthpiece of the administration, then my mistake. When I was there, I thought it was a student newspaper. There should be a student newspaper on campus that allows views critical of the administration. Not having one is akin to the U.S. government controlling the media outlets. Having a paper that's "owned and operated by LU" carries all the problems of a nation having papers that are owned and operated by the government--i.e., you get only the government's side of things. How is that "way off"? You're right that the school has the right to censor it. That's not my point. My point's that the school shouldn't censor it for the same reasons the U.S. government shouldn't censor newspapers. Freedom of speech and expression are objective ideas that shouldn't be suppressed without a sensible rationale. So far, no one's trotted out a sensible rationale. From what I can tell, most people just assume the administration knows what its doing. But they rarely explain themselves on these issues either. Why is no one else questioning this on here?

Sure, an element of the press is there to report. But editorial pages are a big part of the press as well. And you shouldn't assume that "critical" is bad. It's not always accompany the dreaded "negative attitude." Critical thinking is good. And being critical of authority is good. Evaluation and critical analysis is an essential part of journalism. You'd be hard-pressed to argue otherwise. Criticism is not always negative and unproductive as many people assume.

What's not remotely similar? Some commenter earlier defended censorship of the Champion by pointing out that people can start blogs, like mine. So, the argument goes, what's the problem? The problem is that LU censors outside entities who report anything critical. At least that was the case for the Truth @ LU. It got banned on campus. So what's the problem with the analogy that you have such a handle on?

Again, no one's arguing that the school's not within its rights to censor. But why would it censor, unless it was insecure about a little dissent? No one's taken that one up yet. Here's someone's chance. I'm raising the issue . . . again. Someone explain why, despite LU's obviously legal right to censor, censorship is appropriate or educational.

[Liberty Freelance]

RubberMallet,

You're 1 for about 25 now. That was actually pretty funny. Scoring an interview with that guy would probably be a good idea, though, because he might do something (besides making that YouTube video) to make himself notorious.

[Liberty Freelance]

Which other schools censor their papers?

And rueful, you're attacking a straw man. We don't hate Liberty. See a much earlier post of mine about how irrelevant it is to raise transferring as a response to criticism.

To whomever wrote that he or she doesn't read the campus paper, I can't find the comment right now, did you ever think that could be because the content is predictable? If the pages of the Champion were populated with a vibrant debate about policies, perhaps you would read it.

[RagingTireFire]

Oh, good Lord. Do you actually read what you post?

• First, the US government does not own the Wall Street Journal. Liberty does own the Champion. The US government is a state governing body. Liberty is a private institution. These are not remotely the same things. (NOTE: I typed that really slowly so you could get the full gist of it.)
  
  Second, Liberty is under no obligation to provide any campus newspaper at all, much less subsidize one whose purpose is criticize it every turn.
  
  Thirdly, -- and I'll quote you here -- if "Freedom of speech and expression are objective ideas that shouldn't be suppressed without a sensible rationale" then that, by extenstion, means that you're OK with suppressing ideas so long as there's a decent reason for it. I'll let you find the hole in your own argument there.
  
  Fourthly, I'm assuming that you referring to "criticism" in a negative context because that's the context you've used it in all the way up to this point. As to the positive aspects of criticism, you're right in that critical thinking is good. I suggest that you apply it to your thought processes here.
  
  Fifthly, as to the banning of "The Truth", I can't speak to the specifics but I'm betting that LU did not -- nor would it have had the capacity to -- shut it down outright. I would guess that LU simply blocked that specific web address from the LU ISP, as is their right.
  
  Sixthly, as to why should LU censor anything, the answer is simple. LU is populated by students. Students are, by definition, ignorant. They go to school to become less so. This is the purpose of higher education. For the university to subsidize any forum that will inevitably devolve into a maelstrom of rumors, half-truths, name-calling and character assassination would be simply assinine. One need look no farther than this board to see the evidence of that.

In short, you're an illogical simpleton -- see? -- who has clearly come on here with an agenda that is clearly not supported by any reason or basis other than the blunted edge of the axe you insist on grinding. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

[flamesfilmguy]

Oh, good Lord. Do you actually read what you post?

• First, the US government does not own the Wall Street Journal. Liberty does own the Champion. The US government is a state governing body. Liberty is a private institution. These are not remotely the same things. (NOTE: I typed that really slowly so you could get the full gist of it.)
  
  Second, Liberty is under no obligation to provide any campus newspaper at all, much less subsidize one whose purpose is criticize it every turn.
  
  Thirdly, -- and I'll quote you here -- if "Freedom of speech and expression are objective ideas that shouldn't be suppressed without a sensible rationale" then that, by extenstion, means that you're OK with suppressing ideas so long as there's a decent reason for it. I'll let you find the hole in your own argument there.
  
  Fourthly, I'm assuming that you referring to "criticism" in a negative context because that's the context you've used it in all the way up to this point. As to the positive aspects of criticism, you're right in that critical thinking is good. I suggest that you apply it to your thought processes here.
  
  Fifthly, as to the banning of "The Truth", I can't speak to the specifics but I'm betting that LU did not -- nor would it have had the capacity to -- shut it down outright. I would guess that LU simply blocked that specific web address from the LU ISP, as is their right.
  
  Sixthly, as to why should LU censor anything, the answer is simple. LU is populated by students. Students are, by definition, ignorant. They go to school to become less so. This is the purpose of higher education. For the university to subsidize any forum that will inevitably devolve into a maelstrom of rumors, half-truths, name-calling and character assassination would be simply assinine. One need look no farther than this board to see the evidence of that.

In short, you're an illogical simpleton -- see? -- who has clearly come on here with an agenda that is clearly not supported by any reason or basis other than the blunted edge of the axe you insist on grinding. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Can I nominate this as post of the year?

[ToTheLeft]

I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.

Winner.

[RubberMallet]

RubberMallet,

You're 1 for about 25 now. That was actually pretty funny. Scoring an interview with that guy would probably be a good idea, though, because he might do something (besides making that YouTube video) to make himself notorious.

\

you are 51 for 51...every post you've made has been hilarious

[Liberty Freelance]

I get it. I know that the U.S. doesn't own the WSJ. That's why Liberty's administration shouldn't run the Champion. Get it? The analogy is apt because it's healthy for the nation to have independent newspapers. It would also be healthy for Liberty. I thought an independent student newspaper is what the Champion purported to be. You seem to think it's well known that the Champion is an administration-run paper. If you're right, then that needs to change, for the same reason I wouldn't want the government controlling, say, the WSJ. There needs to be an independent check--the press. (I typed that at normal speed, so I could do other things this evening).

You seem to be hung up on what Liberty's legally obligated to do. I'm more concerned with prescriptions here. I know they're not required to have a paper. But they should have an independent one. Free speech is healthy and is good for the administration and for journalists in training. Do you disagree?

Yes, some speech should be suppressed. Here are two examples: shouting fire when there isn't one in a crowded theater--i.e., speech that constitutes a clear-and-present danger--or shouting on the steps of a courthouse and disrupting a trial. Those are decent rationales for suppressing speech. I'm looking for the hole there. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the law and come back to the forum when you're better prepared.

I haven't used "criticism" in a negative context. You've interpreted "criticism" to be used in a negative context. You made that assumption.

And yes, LU did block the web address for "Truth @ LU." That's censorship, no? The flow of information that goes to the students is censored. Of course, that's Liberty's right. I would hope they wouldn't need the law to explain to them the problems with suppressing dissent. Again, you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that LU's breaking the law. I'm arguing that it would be healthy for the school if they allowed a free market in ideas.

And your last point is misguided. I'm not contending that the Champion should not edit its paper. All your hyperbolic fears would be weeded out in the editing process. That should be the role of the faculty, instead of outright censorship of ideas.

In the end, you've called me a lot of names. I'm still waiting for a proper response. Any takers?

[Baldspot]

Sly Fox and ToTheLeft,

I think SF said he is a journalist. Either way, you're misunderstanding of the system is frightening. Of course, if I worked for a major publication I would expect the newspaper to censor my individual articles.

I think there is a thread referencing Sly Fox' journalistic background. Fox Sports, NBC, media consultant to large/small corporations, etc etc. You get the picture. Seems like some people just can't be helped.

[Liberty Freelance]

And then what happened?

[El Scorcho]

...you're misunderstanding of the system...

As a journalist, there's another system you might want to look into.

[Libertine]

I'm still waiting for a proper response. Any takers?

I get the sense that waiting for a proper response is just code for waiting for someone to agree with you.

[Sly Fox]

It has been way too long, Lib.

[libertyFANatic123]

I'm still waiting for a proper response. Any takers?

I get the sense that waiting for a proper response is just code for waiting for someone to agree with you.

[Liberty Freelance]

El Scorcho,

If you're trying to mock my misuse of "you're," then you probably regret your misplaced modifier in the sentence in which you tried to mock my usage. Grammatical errors are inevitable in a setting like this, though I do my best to minimize them in all settings.

[Liberty Freelance]

Libertine,

Care to tell us why? It will take a little more work. But answering the question why in your posts would save us all some time and would lend a point to your posts. It would also turn your conclusion into an actual argument.