Campaign Buttons, Professors and Journalists

Seems to me that journalists and college professors have a lot in common when balancing preaching the good of the First Amendment and actually exercising the right themselves:

In New York City, Department of Education Chancellor Joel Klein announced that his administration would enforce a longstanding policy prohibiting teachers from wearing campaign buttons when they are at work. In Illinois, the state university ethics office stated in its newsletter that faculty are barred not only from wearing campaign buttons in the classroom, but also from placing political bumper stickers on their cars and attending political rallies on campus.

Reaction was swift and predictable. In a letter to Chancellor Klein, United Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten noted that teachers have always “been allowed to express their opinions as citizens, political and otherwise, on their lapels.” American Association of University Professors President Cary Nelson (an emeritus professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana) issued a statement deploring the “chilling effect on speech” of such rules, which, he says, amount to “interference with the educational process.” He asks why “students can exercise their constitutional rights and attend rallies and wear buttons advocating candidates, but faculty cannot?”

Sound familiar, journos? Freedom of speech food for thought.

An Open Letter to Montclair State's Student Paper

Dear student journalists:

It is a terrible situation that the funds used to publish your newspaper have been frozen. It is unfair and done in complete disregard for our beloved First Amendment. The New York Times ponders if you'll be able to put out this week's paper; I say you will be. Here's how.

Students, you are a part of a generation that largely embraces technology, and though this is a far different crisis from that which happened at Virginia Tech, you can learn from their actions. When the going gets tough, and the printing presses aren't cooperating, go to the Internet. Your website, which is likely funded by the same source, is still live, and you have shown that you can still publish there. Continue to update it with images, and tell everyone who cares to listen.

Spread the word.

Tell your fellow students and Poynter Romenesko readers and New York Times readers that you have found an alternative source to continue your journalism, and it is on the Web. And if it so happens that your website access is pulled or denied, start a blog -- I suggest Montclarion.blogspot.com. In this age of citizen journalism, your words cannot be stifled -- just relocated.

Run with it -- post to your heart's content. Show everyone what you post, and repost the content that started this disagreement between you and your university's president, Ron Chicken, so that outsiders can understand the full extent of the conflict. Do not strike below the belt; do not play to "chicken" jokes. Keep your chins up and continue your journalism. And when the dust clears and the fight is over, you'll have been proud that you have upheld all of the values that fueled your desire to write for the student newspaper in the first place.

Good luck and Godspeed,
The Editorialiste.

Taking Responsibility: How The Sacramento Bee Protected The Hive's Freedom Of Speech

Remember the old controversy over whether or not a news publication should audit its online comments?

About two years ago, the Washington Post ran into just that problem when it literally turned the function off after the usual stock of personal attacks and profanity showed up on its pages. Bloggers were furious, citing a violation of their own virtual First Amendment, and news hounds were appalled that the Post would stifle the voice of its readers.

At the time, washingtonpost.com executive editor Jim Brady wrote, "We're not giving up on the concept of having a healthy public dialogue with our readers, but this experience shows that we need to think more carefully about how we do it."

Two years later, the Sacramento Bee might have just figured it out.

A new policy at the Bee requires full names attached with online comments. Old-guard 'netphiles would argue that this ruins the anonymity of the Internet, but in the Bee's eyes, it introduces responsibility. After all, if you're going to take the time to say something, you should take responsibility for it, no?

As a result, the Bee is no longer vetting comments. In this case, that's great -- it rids of the need for such energy and time to do so and gets Bee staffers back on the important stuff: the news. Plus, any time a newspaper steps away from appearing like a God-like authoritative figure ("I am the decider"), that's a good thing.

However, the current worry is that staffers within places like government institutions won't have the freedom to comment without fear of repercussions.

But you know what I say to that? Baloney.

If a government staffer or any other insider has something important to say -- and doesn't want to just correct reader discussion for the sake of it -- he or she should simply e-mail the paper. Allow the paper to take anything important public, under the veil of anonymity. Isn't that what the paper's for?

If the Bee is worried that they won't get any more tips, they should introduce a special tip-off e-mail address that guarantees anonymity -- kind of like how The Consumerist treats its tipsters. If something's important, a well-written article would probably break more news than one comment among hundreds on a story.

So many news agencies are worried about how to handle the citizen masses. "But they'll curse!" they say. "But they'll be racist!" they say. Ah -- but when their name is attached, a digital trail may soon form, and they'll dig their own grave.

But I'm still stuck on this nuance: How exactly will the Bee ensure the use of a legitimate name? Or will this turn into a bunch of flamewars between "Billary Clinton" and "Hick Cheney"? I don't know.

But what I do know is that this action is not an overreaction nor infringing on freedom of speech. I applaud the Bee. If you want your freedom, stand up and claim it. Last time I checked, the Constitution doesn't guarantee you anonymity with it.