Posted by
Randal Lee Manning Jr. on Monday, September 24, 2007 7:50:53 PM
I thought that everyone would like to hear my response to the nonsense that the CSU student newpaper recently printed. For context, Google CSU F-Bush, if you have not read the story. I also should mention that I sent a letter to the alumni association and let them know that unless things change quickly I will never support CSU in any way, monetarily or otherwise. The letter follows below. A bonus is that by reading this letter it might be evident that I am learning something in law school.
To whom it may concern:
I am an alumni and you have no idea how immature and silly your comments are. You live in a bubble where most of your actions have very little consequences, but now come to find out not everybody agrees with the blatant disrespect of the highest elected U.S official. Policy critiques, are fine, the writers on this staff are unqualified to give them but they certainly have the right too, if done prudently. But do you think that I like having my degree degraded because a couple of college journalist majors wanted to spark a "discussion" about the first ammendment, a piece of literature that they do not understand.
Here is another problem with what you did; you are representing CSU not just your personal opinions, you are representing the alumni, current students and the entirety of the staff, with this in mind you should have good reason to moderate yourself, not too print obscene materials for your own glory. As for this "unintended" defense you raised, there is a concept in law that a person acts intentionally if the actor has reason to know the consequences of his/her actions are likely to come to bear. The editorial staff had every reason to know this comment would be received poorly and if you didn't than you shouldn't have been hired. Perhaps what is worse is the editorial staff's incoherent attempts at explaining the first ammendment. To say that a collegiate writer has an unabated right to free speech at all times, and in any context just shows how ignorant you are of first ammendment interpretation in the history of America.
Here is a quick tutorial to get you thinking. The first ammendment states that "Congress shall make no law." Focus on the word congress in that sentence and tell me how that applies to states (up to the passing of the 14th ammendment) and furthermore what does the first ammendment say about CSU, it's board of directors and other policy enforcement offices at CSU. I will grant you, that it is possible that CSU has allowed the Collegian to print whatever it's heart desires, but if they did do that they are responsible (once again through knowledge of likely consequences) for the fall out from what was the Collegian's staff inevitable abuse of power. Now for further first ammendment insights the next clause is "abriding the freedom of speech." The word freedom is important in a contextual analysis of the first ammendment. You see, "the freedom of speech" implies that it is an entity in and of itself, and that their is speech that goes beyond the standard of "free." For example you couldn't run a story that claims without proof the dean is having an extramarital affair, this would be slanderous and you could be held liable for damages caused (I hope this is not your first introduction to these terms). If you research the history of censorship in America what you printed, while not enforced today, probably would have been considered, malicious slander, defamation and/or obscenity. The political statement you were trying to make was incoherent and irrelevant, so do not suppose that I am taking issue with you over that. It has long been accepted that resorting to playground insults usually is the result of running out of logical arguments to buffer your position. And then when the @##$ (note the proper journalistic technique) hits the fan and the offendees are fully expecting a retraction and an apology all we hear are lame attempts at defending the importance of the first ammendment, when, as evidenced above you do not even come close to an understanding of what is meant by first ammendment rights. Furthermore the one piece that disagrees with you, out of the plethora of well reasoned responses I am sure you received, you printed a straw-man letter to the editor that does injustice to the other side of the argument.
In conclusion, some of you are pretty decent writers but you need to pick up a book once in a while so your articles do not sound incoherent to the well-read reader. You have disgraced yourselves, current students at CSU, the alumni at CSU and the the self proclaimed reputation of the Rocky Mountain Collegian.
Most definitely sincere,
Randy Manning
CSU alum 2006