There are just too many things to write about right
now. Curmie doesn’t promise FOC Steve
that a piece on the bombing of those Venezuelan boats will happen, but he does intend
to get to work on it soon, and that Politico article about the Young Republicans group chat—laden with about every variety of
hatred, from misogyny to racism to antisemitism to homophobia and more—seems
worthy of comment.
But Curmie can, as is his wont, bundle three different
stories that emerged roughly simultaneously under the general heading of
Censorial Asshatitude. One of them is a
little more complicated than the other two, which is to say there initially seemed
to have been a little mitigation involved... key words: “initially,” “seemed,”
and “a little.” Let’s start there.
Curmie once thought about pursuing his doctorate at Indiana
University, and even visited the campus.
He has a lot of friends who got their doctorates there, including one of
his best friends from college, two from his first teaching gig, and two from a
professional organization. Oh, and another
dear friend taught there for a decade. Curmie
is not by nature a hugger, but all six of these folks get a hug instead of a
handshake if he ever sees them in person again.
So whereas he has no direct link to the university, he cares more about
what happens there than he might for a similar university elsewhere.
Anyway, IU is trying to move their student newspaper, the Indiana
Daily Student, online. There are
legitimate reasons for this, not least of them being a recognition of
reality. Curmie hasn’t read a print
newspaper in years, and suspects that you might not have done so either, Gentle
Reader. All the signs suggest that print
journalism will be little more than a memory by the time today’s undergraduates
are ready to move into leadership positions, if not before. In a discipline that, unlike the traditional
liberal arts, really is intended to be pre-professional, gearing the operation
towards an emerging future rather than a sentimentalized past makes a fair
amount of sense.
But to say the administration was ham-handed in their
execution would be a rather egregious understatement. The transition to online, occasioned in part
by financial concerns, has already begun, as what was once a daily paper had
been printed only sporadically of late.
But as the staff was constructing an edition to be published this week,
they were told… get this… not to publish any news stories,
but to concentrate solely on Homecoming-related material. A newspaper being forbidden from publishing
news is, shall we say, headline-worthy.
The school’s Director of Student Media, Jim Rodenbush,
objected to the move, citing the IDS’s charter:
“final editorial responsibility for all content rests with the chief student
editors or leaders.” He may or may not
have muttered the word “censorship” in the process. He was, of course, fired for his efforts,
because honoring agreements is so passé.
And when the student staff asked why, their entire edition was shut down.
Still, it seemed like the university had at least a whiff of
a case: they pay the bills, after all. But
then the other shoe dropped. The
Federation for Individual Rights and Expression released a statement (well, technically a blog piece, but if it shows up on the website, someone in
authority approved it) explaining that the real problem was that the student
editors thought it worthy of publication that the university ranked 255th out of the 257 colleges and universities included in the latest of FIRE’s free
speech rankings.
Apparently incapable of appreciating the irony of violating
the 1st Amendment rights of a newspaper that had <checks
notes> documented cases of violating 1st Amendment rights, the
university administration, in the person of Dean David E. Tolchinsky, made
things much, much, worse, both for the IDS and especially for the
reputation of the university. It is
unclear whether Tolchinsky is a repressive jackass or simply an amoral toady who
decided it was better to fire Rodenbush rather than risk losing his own, no
doubt lucrative, gig. It doesn’t
matter. He has done irreparable harm to both
Indiana’s media program and the university as a whole. He should be shit-canned. Full stop.
Let’s stick with FIRE and a university, or in this case, a
collection of universities. This week, a
federal judge David Alan Ezra issued a preliminary injunction against
implementing Texas Senate Bill 2972,
which just might be the stupidest piece of legislation ever passed in this
state, and that is a very high hurdle, indeed.
It is nothing more or less than an attack on freedom of speech on all
public university campuses in the state.
You probably know, Gentle Reader, that Curmie is now retired
from a public university in Texas, so he’s got a stake in this one even if only
indirectly. The bill expressively defines
“expressive activity” as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the
First Amendment…” and includes “assemblies, protests, speeches, the
distribution of written material, the carrying of signs, and the circulation of
petitions.” It then proceeds to “prohibit”
“expressive activities on campus between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.” Inviting speakers to campus or using any form
of sound amplification or percussive instruments during the last two weeks of a
semester are also verboten. (There
goes that orchestra concert…)
Most of the rest of the bill suggests, legitimately, that reasonable
time, place, and manner restrictions are appropriate, and that “disrupting the
functioning of the institution” cannot be countenanced. Not so, however, for the items mentioned in Curmie’s
previous paragraph. Those activities are
outlawed whether or not they cause even the slightest ripple of disruption.
Curmie has reminded his readers repeatedly that he is not a
lawyer… but the folks at FIRE are, and they point out that the bill would
allow, even demand, that universties “punish everything from wearing a T-shirt
with a message, to writing an op-ed, to playing music — even worship.” FIRE Senior Attorney Adam Steinbaugh argues that
“Texas’ law is so overbroad that any public university student chatting in the
dorms past 10 p.m. would have been in violation.” FIRE’s clients in bringing the suit to
challenge the law range from the Fellowship of Christian University Students
(FOCUS) at UT-Dallas to the Texas Society of Unconventional Drummers at UT-Austin.
Actually interfering with the functioning of the university,
even to the extent of making too much noise in the dorm when others are trying to
study or sleep, is one thing, but this stuff is ridiculous. More significantly, it invites selective
enforcement. One can easily imagine that
campus police would agree that wearing a MAGA cap on the daily 7:00 a.m. jog should
be allowed, but that a “Black Lives Matter” shirt shouldn’t be (or vice versa). Curmie directed more than one show that didn’t
end before 10:00. Should the last 20
minutes of Carlo Goldoni’s 1746 comedy The Servant of Two Masters be
suppressed? It’s certainly expressive
speech, and you could call the audience an “assembly.”
Fact is, we could go on forever listing even a portion of
the perfectly reasonable and unobtrusive expression that the bill would
prohibit. Let’s face it, whoever wrote
this nonsense, or even voted for it, would come in third in a battle of wits
with a tire iron and a dead armadillo.
Certainly it’s a good thing that Judge Ezra blocked the
law from going into effect, noting that “The First Amendment does not have a
bedtime of 10:00 p.m.” (Curmie loves that line.) But whereas an
injunction is welcome, that doesn’t mean that the law has actually been
overturned. That is, of course, the
consummation devoutly to be wished. In a
perfect world, of course, the court costs involved would be borne not by the
state treasury, but shared by every idiot legislator who voted for this
manifestly unconstitutional tripe.
But if SB2972 is notable primarily for its stupidity, Pete Hegseth’s
latest attempt at controlling press coverage of the Pentagon is considerably
more troubling. The policy would require
prior approval from the Pentagon before publishing anything related to their
activity, even unclassified information.
As is a running theme through this essay, Curmie turns to FIRE for their take.
They note an attempt by Trumpian acolytes to frame this censorship
as protecting national security. Hegseth writes: “There is a critical distinction between
lawfully requesting information from the government and actively soliciting or
encouraging government employees to break the law. The First Amendment does not
permit journalists to solicit government employees to violate the law by
providing confidential government information.”
The only problem with that statement is: that’s bullshit. Actually, the First Amendment does
permit journalists to do that, as FIRE’s Adam Goldstein writes, “The First
Amendment has limited
enumerated exceptions, such as speech that is defamatory, speech that would
inspire imminent lawless action, and obscenity. ‘Asking a question where the
answer might be classified’ isn’t on the list, and reporting on national
security matters is protected
speech.”
It’s a truism among lawyers (at least the TV versions of
lawyers) that you should never ask a question of a witness in a trial unless
you already know the answer. Reporters work
differently: they’re trying to ascertain the facts, not to advance a client’s
interests. Here’s Goldstein again: “While
a journalist might reasonably infer that the United States is engaging in some
activity that falls into the sensitive or classified categories, they don’t
have any power to determine what answer they actually receive.”
In other words, perhaps Hegseth should concentrate on
finding Pentagon staffers who will STFU if it’s appropriate to do so. Faced with a question that might lead to
divulging classified information, an employee might reasonably respond “no
comment” or “I’m not in a position to answer that question.” Lying shouldn’t be an option; neither should revealing
classified, or perhaps even sensitive, information. That doesn’t seem too difficult to
Curmie. Does it to you, Gentle Reader?
As Goldstein writes, the new policy shifts the blame to the
press if some staffer says something they shouldn’t. It also turns the Pentagon into a propaganda
machine, cheerfully censoring anything that might be embarrassing. Not “classified.” Not “sensitive.” Embarrassing.
As is well known by now, reporters from every news agency
except OANN (and anyone who gets their news there is by definition beyond hope)
turned in their badges and, as seen in the photo above, walked out en masse
rather than be subject to absurd and unconstitutional restrictions. There is, of course, a desperate attempt by
the Trumpian minions to frame this as a partisan issue. Nope.
True, the usual suspects—the AP, CNN, the New York Times, etc.—all
refused to submit to the new rules.
But so did Fox News, Newsmax, the Wall Street Journal,
Military Times, The Daily Caller, the Washington Examiner, and
the Washington Times. That’s a
pretty healthy list of right-leaning outlets that want their reporters to be
journalists rather than propagandists. Curmie
respects these agencies for their integrity on this issue, even if on few
others. It’s harder to do the right
thing when “your side” expects you to do otherwise. So, kudos to them.
None of these three stories has run its course. IU may or may not find its way back to obeying the Constitution. A preliminary injunction is not the same as declaring a law unconstitutional. The elaborate game of chicken at the Pentagon is likely to go on for a while. These cases, like so many in other areas, show signs of authoritarianism but also signs of resistance, integrity, and hope. We’ll lose some skirmishes along the way, no doubt. But these are battles worth fighting, and Curmie (not known for his naïveté) cannot but believe we’ll ultimately emerge battered but triumphant. We’re the ones who really want to make America great again. Let’s do that.
