University of Virginia Library

The Real Obscenity

One the front page of this newspaper there
is a news story which contains the words
"bullshit," "fuck," and "shit." If you find
there words offensive then you probably
agree with the Richmond Times-Dispatch
which editorialized yesterday: "when a
college newspaper falls into the hands of
intellectual pygmies who insist upon
saturating it with filth, administrative officials
are entitled - and obligated - to take
corrective action."

And if you agree with that editorial, then
you probably also agree that the Publications
Committee at William & Mary, which
exonerated its student newspaper against
obscenity charges, made a very bad decision.
We happen to consider this decision a small
victory for freedom, and victories of this type
are becoming rarer all the time.

A newspaper's credibility rests upon its
accuracy. The most infallible way of
accurately reporting what a person has said is
to quote a speaker's exact words. If some of
the words happen to be "obscene" it is not
the job of a newspaper to act as a guardian of
public morality and refuse to print those
words. We notice the Richmond
Times-Dispatch did not care to give any
examples of what it considers "obscene," nor
did the Associated Press or United Press
International state the words printed by the
William and Mary newspaper in their stories
about the obscenity charges. Americans can
sleep safely at night knowing that the RTD,
AP, and UPI are watching out for them.

The real question raised is censorship. Is a
college newspaper, such as ourselves, free to
print what it wants without fear of censorship
from college officials? The First Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution aside, the
Times-Dispatch says "A college newspaper
does not have the same freedom of expression
that independent publications enjoy." In
retaliation we quote from the Legal Rights
and Responsibilities of College Publications
which says, "All that can be said with
certainty is that the same standards at work
off-campus apply to student publications as
well."

Furthermore, in reply to the RTD's
suggestion that college administrators take
"corrective action" against the "intellectual
pygmies" which run college newspapers, we
cite the legal precedent of Dickey v. State
Board of Education (1967), which ruled that
"a government-run college may not under
circumstances censor its student newspaper,
even though it is the paper's publisher." So
much for the RTD's argument that he who
owns the press (in this case the
Commonwealth of Virginia) has the right to
determine what it prints.

But since when has the RTD and forces
like it let a little thing like the Constitution or
the Supreme Court stand in its way? Ask the
RTD; it says, "Nor should they [college
administrators] be deterred [from taking
corrective action] by outraged yells about
freedom of the press."

Aside from the fact that "obscenities"
have definite literary uses in the
counter-culture or new media, the whole
concept of what is obscene, if anything, is
much different at a college campus than it is
in newspaper offices in Richmond. The moral
standards are very different. In this light it
must be remembered that college newspapers
are published for the college community; not
for Richmonders, alumni, little old ladies, or
other outside agitators. The college
newspaper's first obligation is to its college
readership, not outsiders.

When it bemoans the fact that Harper's
Magazine has "degenerated" because it prints
"obscenities," the RTD should remember
back to days when many a "respectable"
newspaper quoted former president Harry
Truman calling people "S.O.B's" and
"bastards." They called Harry Truman
colorful. When he dropped atomic bombs
they called him patriotic.

We find it ironic that the RTD which is
always warning how a communist takeover
would destroy "freedom" would suggest that
the press should be censored as it is in
communist countries.

Perhaps our problem is that we still
remember Mr. Jefferson and take his words
about freedom of the press too seriously for
the comfort of the RTD.