My name is Jeremy Berrington, and I am a writer for the Oregon Commentator. As many of you probably know, the Programs Finance Committee has decided to strip the Oregon Commentator of its funding and essentially shut our newspaper down. The decision is not final yet, but if the PFC succeeds in shutting the Commentator down, they will be violating one of the few decent principles left in contemporary American society — the right to free speech and freedom of the press.
The PFC has no right to tell the Oregon Commentator (or any other campus publication) what it can and cannot print. The PFC is supposed to be viewpoint-neutral, and any violation of that stance is tantamount to censorship. Mason Quiroz, PFC vice chair, has justified the PFC’s decision on the basis that the Commentator spreads “hate speech” and “incites violence.” Quiroz based this assertion on a complaint made to him by Toby Hill-Meyer, ASUO senator, who believed the Commentator maliciously targeted him/her because of his/her transgender identity and made him/her feel unsafe.
I cannot believe such accusations would be made against the Commentator. I am not a conservative Libertarian, and I do not agree with many of the articles we print, yet I would never contend that we write “hateful” pieces, and I could never claim that anything we do has ever seriously advocated violence. Quiroz’s accusations are offensive to my work, degrading to our publication and completely unfounded in reality.
We have undoubtedly run some tasteless articles and offended people. However, we are a satire magazine, and our content is supposed to contain elements of humor. Sometimes we miss our mark. It should be recognized that people are offended every day by journalism (with more or less validity). People are angered by the content of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Onion and USA TODAY. This does not mean these publications should be shut down or censored.
Situations like Hill-Meyer’s are best solved by letters to the editor, followed by apologies and statements of retraction — not by censorship.
Another aspect of our current predicament that I find completely distasteful is that Hill-Meyer is an ASUO senator. He/she is a public figure and, therefore, not subject to any protection from satire under the current communication laws. That is part of the tradeoff Hill-Meyer’s responsibility for shaping public policies and regulations. He/she has the right to complain, to file grievances, to write opposing editorials, etc. He/she can even advocate for our removal from the University, but he/she cannot be granted such a request.
If Hill-Meyer is looking to run for office outside the University, he/she should keep that in mind. In the real world, the law will be against him/her.
I must ask the PFC and the ASUO to reconsider their position regarding the Oregon Commentator. The essence of free speech is tolerance of ideas we consider the most offensive. It is wrong to classify the content of the Oregon Commentator as “violent hate speech” in order to provide an insufficient legal justification for discontinuing our publication. We are a valuable contribution to the marketplace of ideas, particularly on this campus. Like all publications, we make mistakes, and we are not perfect. Nonetheless, I must contend that we are more worthy of student fees than the majority of endeavors these monies go to fund (read: liquor and drug binges in Sun River). I am hopeful the ASUO and the PFC will deem the First Amendment of our Constitution to be as important as it was to our founding fathers who worked so hard to ensure America would not fall victim to the tyranny of majority opinion.
Jeremy Berrington is a contributor
to the Oregon Commentator