Editorials

Shut up, they explain

Freedom of speech vs. the censors

Freedom of expression is under fire again, but when hasn't it been? There is something about a robust exchange of opinion that always upsets the would-be censors in this society or any other. And all too often they resort to writing dubious law to enforce a gag rule on those with whom they disagree. Or they may just set out to deny access to public information. In either case, they are mistaken, thank goodness, if they think a free press or any other advocate of free speech in this country will tamely submit to their orders.

So let's hear it, first, for the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life group that is seeking to overturn a notorious Ohio statute that forbids--get this--false statements about candidates for public office. As if it were up to government and not the voters to decide the truth, falsity or mix thereof in the flood of campaign rhetoric and political hyperbole that has become a standard part of an American political campaign--and should be in a still free, not to say rambunctious, republic.

It seems some congressman (Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio) complained to his state's election commission about an ad against him that he said misinterpreted the facts, as if that weren't what just about every politician in a heated campaign doesn't claim from time to time.

That kind of claim is the very stuff of American politics, and not anything that merits censoring--even in these politically correct times. Especially in these politically correct times when the pecksniffs and pettifoggers are out in obnoxious force. Not even Ohio's attorney general would defend this obvious infringement of the First Amendment.

In his bid for re-election, Congressman Driehaus had gotten just the verdict he deserved: He was defeated. The decision was delivered by a court higher than any government commission: the court of public opinion, the honorable voters of his district presiding.

Meanwhile, right here in Arkansas, an officious dean at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville fired off a lawyer letter to a newspaper that dared quote from a public document in the university's archives, specifically its Special Collections department. The university even suspended the newspaper from looking at such documents, at least before it had second and better thoughts once it received a separate but equally haughty letter from the newspaper's lawyer.

Even worse, because apparently it's still in effect, is the university's standard form for gaining access to its Special Collections archive, which in big type at the top says Permission to Publish Request Form.

Permission to Publish? In the United States of America? Yep, land of the free and home of the First Amendment--as if some bureaucrat at UA-F could overrule the Constitution of the United States, not to mention Arkansas' own freedom-of-information act.

A space at the bottom of the form is reserved for the researcher to sign so he can waive his First Amendment rights. ("I agree to use the material as approved by the University of Arkansas Libraries.") At the very bottom of the form there is a space to be filled in by the administration in either of two ways: "Permission is granted, subject to the following conditions:" or "Permission is NOT granted." The all-caps NOT adds a final touch of sheer authoritarian nerve. Although the form would probably sound more authentic in German.

This sorely misinformed, not to say ignorant, dean of the university's libraries responsible for the tone and content of this obnoxious form needs to have a nice quiet talk with (a) her conscience, and (b) a good lawyer. Both might keep her from embarrassing herself, her university, and her state any further. She needs to turn this whole, sad episode (call it Hubris Rewarded by Embarrassment) into a learning experience.

In the meantime, the dean seems to have decided that discretion is much the better part of valor, not to mention a decent respect for others' freedom of speech and the public interest. ("UA plans no further action on media site/ Library: Outlet can get access back"--Page 1B, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, June 21, 2014.)

But there is further action the dean needs to take in this sad case. Pronto. That officious and offensive form seems to say that a newspaper, or just any citizen, needs permission to publish an excerpt from a public document. The form needs to be rewritten from top to bottom so that it emerges as nothing more than a simple record of who got access to the university's archives when. And not sound like an insult to the First Amendment, the intelligence of the citizenry, and the whole history of case law in this country forbidding prior restraint of the press, which in this republic goes back even further than the republic itself.

We hope we've made ourselves clear, which is more than we can say about this head librarian. It's time, past time, to ring the curtain down on these Fayetteville Follies.

Editorial on 06/24/2014

Upcoming Events