Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 25, 2002)
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511 Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403 Email: editor@dailyemerald.com Online Edition: www.dailyemerald.com Friday, October 25,2002 -Oregon Daily Emerald — Commentary Editor in Chief: Michael J. Kleckner Managing Editor Jessica Richelderfer Editorial Editors: Salena De La Cruz, Pat Payne Editorial DPS, religious group both acted correctly, respected free speech “The world is going to hell in a handbasket and all of you will be rid ing on top.” These were just some of the words students were bom barded with on their way to and from classes on Wednesday. A big sign pointed to the heavens, and big bold letters that read “Re pent” were seen before students could even tell who was trying to guide them into the light of righteousness. As students got closer, shouts through a bullhorn reverberated the need for students to re pent or they’d be given a one-way ticket to hell. Their message was loud and clear. Even if students ignored it, the religious group continued their barrage of words at students. Many people endured while the group berated them for their decision to go to college and have someone “tell them how to think.” The group’s speaker continued shouting through his bullhorn, repeating if students continued their current direction, they’d be first in line to hell. Freedom of speech is a powerful notion, and even more so when people feel attacked by the very words that are so protected by the First Amendment. Two grievances were filed against the religious group as they fumed in the faces of students while marching in front of the EMU. The complaints filed were from students who felt threat ened by the speaker getting in their faces and yelling in their ears with a bullhorn. According to Department of Public Safety Associate Director Tom Hicks, DPS responded to the first complaint about the group’s conduct, telling the demonstrators they could not use the bullhorn because it was not authorized. The group immediately toned down its demon stration, but continued rallying in support of Jesus and the need for people repent their sins. The group’s compliance with the DPS request to “tone it down” showed great tact on their part. Considering some students were very offended by their mere presence, the group’s actions showed common courtesy and a certain respect for individual rights. The second complainant was offended by the content of the reli gious group’s speech. DPS responded once again, but this time officers stood back without addressing the religious group, to see if members were being confrontational in their address. According to Hicks, they were not, so the officers advised the complainants that the group was in its rights as protected by free speech and the First Amendment. The editorial board commends DPS for sitting back and taking the entire situation into account before going to the group with their con cerns, and the group, as well, for heeding requests of the officers who responded. Upon further observation, officers were able to see that the group did nothing other than shout out its message — which is their right. This kind of behavior is an excellent example of how other groups should act in exercising their free speech rights. Editorial policy This editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial board. Responses can be sent to letters #dailyemeraid.com. Health care for ALL Finally, an unborn child’s voice will be heard — at least, it’s a step in the right direction. Effective Nov. 1, the State Children’s Health Insur ance Program (SCRIP) will be ex panding rights to include the fetus. Now, before anyone starts going off about how I could feel this way, given that I’m a woman, too, and it is my body. Well, think on this for a moment — it would also be my baby. I am not by any means saying that a woman does not have the right to get an abortion — after all, it’s her own body. Howev er, it would never be something I’d do myself. A child is a life, from concep tion to birth, and no one is ever going to make me believe differendy. I agree with the proposal that “amends the definition of a covered child to include the period from con ception to birth.” Some argue that by giving the unborn child coverage it takes away the protection of the pregnant woman. I don’t see the log ic in this thinking. Women are Salena DeLaCruz Say it loud already covered during their preg nancy under most insurance plans. If women don’t have insurance, they can obtain the Oregon Health Plan for a low co-pay; which is based on their family income. Other states provide similar coverage. # The coverage for everyone is sore ly lacking—not just women who are pregnant. Everyone deserves cover age, including “unborn children.” Many can and will argue that a baby is just a lump of tissue until it’s bom, and that it has no life. I don’t see how they can say that. At just 28 days of life in the womb, the fetus has already formed a brain, nervous system and a heartbeat. If you don’t consider that a life, then what is? Yes, this proposal is fraught with le gal and practical problems, but at least it’s a first step. I know some may argue that it’s just a first step to lead to the downfall of the Roe v. Wade decision because it defines unborn children as persons. I could see where this could be a concern. By identifying the fetus as an “unborn child” under health care coverage, it legally signifies the fe tus is a living being — which could in turn be used by the government to outlaw abortion. The way I see it, the government just needs to make the wording a lit tle tighter. For instance, they need to say that abortion is the exclusion to this rule, such as is stated in the Vio lence Against Unborn Children Act. This gives identity to the unborn child, but does so to ensure people who assault pregnant women can be held accountable for the death of the unborn child, as well. However, this specifically excludes abortion. I would like to see health care do ing a little more for coverage of abor tions so women who can’t afford one are better provided for. Granted there are some insurance companies that offer coverage for abortions, but they don’t advertise that. Chances are that same insurance coverage is n’t the same one that college stu dents use. The Family Planning Ex pansion Program is a grant with the government set up for more of a con traceptive measure to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. We are one step closer to giving identities to the lost faces of unborn children. I hope the proposal is a success because I don’t believe ba bies are just a lump of tissue. They have an identity the day they are conceived — they just don’t have a name. Give them a name. Contact the editorial editor atsalenadelacruz@dailyemerald.com. Her views do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald. THE POWER OF THE MEDIA X SAW the TAGS OM the MEWSJ NPA 2iz tt%<* 3g«*y Peter Utsey Emerald Is it offensive? Is it acceptable? Is it free speech? Is it art? My topic today isn’t really about the newspaper, because apparendy our coverage is stellar, we’re fair and bal anced in every word we write, and our genuine mistakes haven’t offended a single person. At least, it hasn’t come through on my e-mail. OK, we did get one complaint re cendy, regarding the Oct. 8 article “A Spot in the Sun.” Our first mention of the former sorority house had the cor rect sorority name, Sigma Kappa. Then two subsequent references transposed the names. This was an er ror that we do regret. We didn’t run an official correction, however, because we generally run er rors only in situations where the cor rect name or fact was completely omit ted and readers would have no way of knowing it. To explain other situations can be cumbersome and run the risk of further confusing readers. Again, the transposition was an error that we re gret. And with that, on to my real topic. Art is some times offen sive. And who decides if it’s art or not? This question is at the heart of Wednesday’s sit uation in the EMU Amphithe ater (see “EPD halts perform ance in am phitheater,,f ODE, Oct. 24). Don Goldman (you may have seen him singing and speak ing — he has flowing white hair) re cently has been performing what he calls his “Fuck Speech.” I have been assaulted by this per formance a few times while walking to Michael). Kleckner The editor's office and from classes. Consisting largely of that all-purpose swear word, he also peppers the curses with “Die! Die! Die! ” and “Sit on your fat asses! Sit on your fat asses and watch TV! ” However, the first time I encountered this performance, I heard only the four letter words and the “Die! Die! Die!” There were few people in the amphithe ater, and it looked possible that Gold man had been giving a speech and was now engaged in an angry shouting match with an onlooker. The second time I saw it, I was walk ing close by, and I wondered if he was pissed at me. As editor of the Emerald, I sometimes carry a bit of paranoia that certain community members hate me. But here’s my real question, one I’m hoping our readers will respond to, be cause I think it’s an important social question: Does Goldman’s perform ance qualify as art? The artistic-freedom supporter in me wants to say, “Yes, of course it’s art! Screw you! You can’t judge my art!” But I’m going to take a different posi tion, at least provisionally. I’m open to being convinced otherwise. Goldman’s “Fuck Speech” may be art, but I don’t think it should be al lowed in the amphitheater as is. Other offensive art is easily identi fiable as art. If I walk into a gallery and see an offensive painting, I don’t say to myself, “Oh my gosh! It’s the real Holy Virgin Mary, smeared in elephant dung!” I know it’s art, how ever offended I may be. With Goldman, however, I had no way of knowing this was a perform ance. Sometimes random people just step onto the amphitheater stage and start spouting off. I was never sure if Goldman’s tirade was directed at someone or if he might step down from the stage and start attacking people. And telling me to “Eat shit and die!” — whether he intended to di rect it specifically at me or not — really isn’t OK in a public place that we all have the right to transverse without verbal assault. Why couldn’t Goldman have a little sign near his feet, identifying his art as such? Then I could stand, sip my cof fee, enjoy the “shock” value of the per formance, examine the potential for social change and artistic value, and generally have a snooty good time. Well, I’ve said enough. Maybe I’ve of fended some of you “free speech” types with your sniveling sympathies and your disregard for the rest of us walking to class. Write in and tell me about it. Contact the editor in chief at editor@dailyemerald.com. His opinions do not necessarily represent those of the Emerald.
