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.