Commentary
Commentary about homosexuals
didn’t rise to level of hate speech
In the three years I have been
working at the Emerald, I have never
once shied away from honestly ex
pressing my opinions. I think this is a
good thing — the world would be a
better place if people would be more
upfront with each other about what
they think is right and wrong.
I’m about to
do it again, al
though it may
not be an an
swer some of
our readers
want to hear. So
what’s the ques
tion? Well, on
Friday, we print
ed a guest com
mentary by Vin
cent Martorano
(“Homosexual
men should hide their disgusting acts”)
that has created a bit of a ruckus.
I have received e-mails and phone
calls about the piece, some support
ive and others admonishing me for
printing it. For the record, I directly
decide what to print on the Com
mentary page every day. So far this
year, we haven’t rejected any submis
sions based on content.
Before I gave it the go-ahead, I scru
tinized Martorano’s piece and gave ex
tensive thought to the pros and cons of
running it. The arguments I’ve heard
against publishing the piece run like
this: It was homophobic, it creates an
environment for hate crimes, it was
poorly argued, it was a personal attack
— and we would never have run the
piece if it picked on some other group,
MichaelJ.
Kleckner
The editor's office
such as people of color.
I considered those issues, and in this
particular case, I respectfully disagree.
I am gay, I have been the target of ho
mophobic violence, and I agree that
our community standards shouldn’t
include allowing people to express ha
tred toward any individual group.
However, Martorano’s piece does
not rise to that level. He does not ex
press hatred or include any sort of
call to action against homosexuals
(whether a physical attack, a legisla
tive change or anything else); rather,
he offers his own opinions about ho
mosexuality — that it is morally
wrong, and as such, that seeing it dis
played publicly offends him.
Do I disagree with him? Absolute
ly. There are logical holes in his argu
ment, and I think his opinion dis
plays an incredible amount of
ignorance. But it isn’t my place as a
newspaper editor to say he doesn’t
have the right to say it in public.
Actually, I am offended by the
number of open-minded, tolerant
people who have said that Martorano
should have been silenced. I would
agree if he had told others to be vio
lent. Interestingly, we received two
items of feedback on our Web site sug
gesting violence against Martorano.
Even if in jest, such suggestions are
inappropriate, and as soon as I dis
covered them, I removed them.
I readily acknowledge there is a
fine line between hate speech and
one’s personal disapproval of others.
It’s a difficult rope on which to bal
ance, but the U.S. Supreme Court
has set a high bar for determining
what qualifies as hate speech, and I
agree with that principle. (For a fur
ther discussion of this issue, see the
American Civil Liberties Union’s
“Hate Speech on Campus” at
http ://www. aclu. orgTYeeSpeech/Fre
eSpeech.cfm?ID=9004&c=87).
I am a big fan of John Stuart Mill.
One of my favorite parts of his “On
Liberty” is Chapter IV, where he talks
about the proper authority of the pub
lic to legislate or disapprove of personal
conduct. While we should not have the
right to make illegal personal conduct
that does not involve others, Mill ar
gues, we have the right, and perhaps
the duty, to tell people when we think
their behavior is wrong.
That’s the joy of this entire situa
tion. Here’s an opportunity to express
to the community different, contrast
ing opinions about homosexuality. So
step forward and tell Martorano that
he is wrong. Educate him, make
friends with him, tell him his ideas are
ignorant—if that’s what you believe.
But please don’t say I should have
told him he wasn’t allowed to express
his opinion. After three years of
speaking my mind on the Commen
tary page, I would have been hypo
critical to do so.
P.S. Letters and guest commen
taries about this topic are forthcom
ing, and many of them were written
before I wrote this column, so they
aren’t necessarily engaging my argu
ment directly.
Contact the editor in chief
at editor@dailyemerald.com. His
opinions do not necessarily represent
those of the Emerald.
Gleason commentary
shows loyalty to Nike
Guest commentary
Journalism Dean Tim Gleason’s
May 1 commentary (“Ruling against
Nike would have chilling effect on
speech”) is a blatant testimonial to
just how far University officials will
go to kiss Phil Knight’s pinkie ring as
if he were the Godfather.
I’m simply baffled about the con
troversy over the Nike v. Kasky case.
It all seems extremely clear-cut to
me. Nike is first and foremost a mon
ey-making machine. Whether it’s a
30-second shoe commercial or an
image-boosting public relations cam
paign, the company is still trying to
sell products. I am glad that false ad
vertising is prohibited, and it needs
to stay that way.
Don’t get me wrong: I totally don’t
agree that corporations should be si
lenced in debates of great public in
terest — overseas sweatshops, for
example. But we cannot ignore
Nike’s intentions. They don’t want a
bad reputation because they don’t
want a drop in sales. If they choose
to give an opinion about labor condi
tions, it’s completely understandable
and should be warmly welcomed.
However, the campaign in question
strongly asserted so-called facts
about the manufacturing of their
products, not political opinion.
The most disturbing aspect of
Gleason’s argument is he implies
that corporate executives should
have free reign to lie all they want. If
the “facts” in the Nike campaign
were substantially true, the whole
case would be a non-issue. But now
it comes down to whether or not the
court will allow them to lie.
Don’t take my word for it. Gleason
basically admitted it himself. He
hopes the court will “demonstrate its
belief in the ability of the journalists
and the public to sort out truth and
falsity in the marketplace of ideas.”
Translation? It’s not the responsibili
ty of corporations to accurately rep
resent their products and practices.
It should be left to the public to play
guessing games. Oh yeah, that
sounds ethical.
Gleason thinks that business
sources will have to resort to “no
comment” when speaking to jour
nalists if Kasky wins his case. Well, if
they become speechless because
they are not allowed to give out com
pletely false information to the pub
lic, then so be it.
I may be old-fashioned, but I still
believe if you can’t say something
honest, don’t say anything at all.
Lori Musicer is a senior journalism major.
$2,00 OFF
DOUBLE PRINTS:
FUJICOLOR
4x6 prints:
12 exp $3.25
24 exp $6.25
36 exp $8.25
Fiom 35nrm-C-41 colqi punt
filrrV. Panoramic and. half -frame
negatives excluded.
3x5 prints:
12 exp $1.25
24 exp $4.25
36 exp $7.25
PHOTO
SPECIALS
3
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
BOOKSTORE
vw.uobookstore.ci
0
RECYCLE
v English as usual
Shakespeare
ENG 208. CRN 41713. Noon-12:50 p.m
MUWH. Jennifer Shaiman.
English in Summer
2003 SUMMER SESSION ■ JUNE 23-AUGUST 15
Register on DuckWeb now. Pick up a free summer
catalog in Oregon Hall or at the UO bookstore.
It has all the information you need to know about
UO summer session, http://uosummer.uoregon.edu
O
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
diversity of Ores,0"*
web Pore/
London.$472
Paris.$491
Madrid.$684
San Jose, C.R...$573
Fare is roundtrip from Eugene. Subject to change and availability. Tax not
included. Restrictions and blackouts apply.
and NOT
just
online
r
8771/2 East 13th St. (541) 344.2263
I
^ MHBHH
i
ISIC
www.sfcadravei.com
STA
TRAVEL
—
» on the PHone >> on cgmpu/ » oft the /treet
leadership
from the inside ouf
considering leadership:
how personal styles
influence leadership
approaches to
conflict resolution
During the first part of this workshop you will have
the opportunity to take a self-score version of the
Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory. Then you’ll learn
how the way you operate in the world influences
your definition of leadership, your expectations from
a leader and how you think you should act when in
a leadership position. We will discuss how differing
views of leadership can lead to differing conclusions
in each of these areas.
3-6:30PM ■ ROGUE ROOM ■ EMU
This interactive workshop will explore concepts and
skills related to effective communication and conflict
resolution. We will cover topics such as distinguishing
positions from interests, looking at the impact of
assumptions and inferences, shifting your “conflict
lens" and the art of asking questions.
3-5PM ■ UMPQUA ROOM ■ EMU
WORKSHOPS ARE FREE. LIMITED SEATING. PRE-REGISTRATION SUGGESTED.
REFRESHMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE.
TO REGISTER OR FOR MORE INFORMATION CALL: 346-61 1 9 OR EMAIL
LLATOUR@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU
sponsored by the erb memorial union and pepsi cola of euqene