Posted on 10/10/2002 1:02:08 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
To begin with, I should report that I am a regular reader of Maxim magazine's Web site.
And it's not for the articles.
The magazine, which specializes in photos of scantily clad celebrities, touched off a controversy at UNLV's Boyd School of Law recently, when first-year student Clarke Walton was spotted reading it on his laptop computer during a class break. Two fellow students, both women, complained to their professor, Jean Whitney, that they were offended and distracted by the image.
Now, it would be nice if we lived in a world where a law school professor, so confronted, could tell the would-be barristers to get over their discomfort and learn to deal with offensive things, which they very likely may encounter in their careers. It would be nice to live in a world where we need not worry constantly about giving offense, and the implications for our lives and careers if we do. It would be nice to live in a world where a sense of humor -- or at least one of proportion -- was commonplace. It would be nice to live in a world where society isn't ordered upon what will or will not tread upon the delicate sensibilities of the most easily offended.
But that world isn't this.
Professor Whitney called Walton aside. Whitney explained Maxim was his home page and -- believe it or not -- he was actually reading an article, not investigating the Girlfriend of the Day. But, made aware of the mess the incident had caused, Walton agreed to change his home page.
"I'm obligated to make this a comfortable learning environment for all students," Professor Whitney says.
And there it ended, or so it appeared. But Walton soon began hearing other Boyd professors discuss the incident -- no names, of course -- in other classes. So he once more took to his non-celebrity skinned computer and wrote a missive distributed over the law school's electronic bulletin board.
"While viewing this magazine in my L.P. class approximately two weeks ago, two female students looked at my computer screen and were allegedly 'offended' by what they saw. This is unfortunate," Walton wrote. "I contend that this case was not an issue of sexual harassment, but rather an issue of privacy and of free speech. My counter complaint is that my right to privacy was violated when these women looked at my computer screen without my express or implied permission. Furthermore, I contend that by being asked to refrain from viewing this information on my computer screen, my first amendment right to free speech has been violated."
After that, Walton says he was asked to meet with UNLV Assistant Vice President for Diversity Ann Casados-Mueller Wednesday afternoon about the incident. Walton says Casados-Mueller told him Maxim was "soft porn" and that reading it on campus could be considered sexual harassment. The vice president asked him to attend a diversity awareness seminar and write a follow-up e-mail to the bulletin board apologizing for his conduct, or face formal charges. As of Wednesday, Walton said he hadn't decided what to do.
Two things bear repeating: One, humans are nowhere guaranteed the right to live free of offense, and the government is nowhere obligated to purge every offending thing. Two, it's not even about that. The students who took a stray glance at Walton's laptop computer could simply have looked away.
But they complained anyway, and not even to Walton. Why? They wanted to exercise a measure of control over what he was reading, at least so long as he was in their presence. And that's the most insidious thing about the Offense Movement.
Such people don't just want us to stop doing things they don't like. They want to control what we think, too. They want us to live in a world where they approve of everything, where they never encounter an unpleasant moment, and where other people conform to their whims as if we were a collection of Malibu Barbies posed in the world's biggest beach house.
But once more, that world is not this.
At least, not yet.
But it will be if otherwise well-meaning people don't start fighting back. The fact that somebody is offended by the sight of a magazine that couldn't be considered sexually explicit under the most liberal of definitions shouldn't be reason enough to force the reader to switch to Better Homes and Gardens. The fact that someone is offended by hearing a verse or two of profanity shouldn't be reason enough to impose speech codes at the work place. And the fact that someone might die years hence from secondhand smoke or might get into a car crash because they're talking on their cell phone shouldn't be reason enough to ban smoking or cell phones.
But there are plenty of lawyers willing to sue to enforce the code of tender sensibilities, and employers and universities are scared of losing those lawsuits. In the past, you may have wondered where all these members of the plaintiffs' bar who take such cases to court come from.
Now you know.
Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist.
His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday.
Reach him at (702) 383-0283 or by e-mail at ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.
Secondly, the articles have gotten unoriginal. Its the same "Sex advice" re-packaged as something "fresh", when its all widely known things or just general stupidity. How long can they keep printing "Sex columns" that say the same thing every month. Borring!
Also, their stupid "hair color" products and commercials irriate the hell out of me. If some freak of a girl tried to lick my hair.....
They have done many, many very funny things(dotcom-opoly, to mention a good one), but they have played out all the jokes that their brand of humor is made up of.
It was great while it lasted. The writers and editors let success go to their heads.
BTW, what is it with feminazis, and writing on themselves with Sharpies? I have automatically decided that all "hate crimes" that include Sharpies are bogus until proven otherwise.
What about all those sexual awareness and information seminars that happen on college campi?
This "making it up as we go along" policy shouldn't make through any type of law suit. Anyway, I doubt Ann can just make up rules on her own. Stupid crap. If I was Willie, I'd tell her and the two complainers to show me the written policy I agreed to, or F!ck off.
Still, there's always the Man Show on telly so life isn't too bad.
Making it up as we go along makes life much easier for the Feminazis who want to control all the men in their lives. I dare her to even start to write a policy, much less to enforce it uniformly across the campus. No more cheerleaders, no more gay days, no more lezzi-fare days. No more co-ed rooms, probably have to outlaw beer, since it leads to unintended consequences.
I forgot! None of those college students would dare to drink until they are 21, or to hit a bong. Ann has in one fell swoop solved all disciplinary problems on campus!
/sarcasm. What a control freak she is! Dominatrix, maybe?
No, no, I think you're mistaken this time. I think a good conservative lawyer, probably from FIRE, is just the prescription for this overly constipated bereaucrat. I wonder if he might actually be able to get some sort of injunction against these maroons, given that they have explicitly threatened to abuse their internal process for the explicit purpose of harassing and inconveniencing the student.
I think that the college distributes a harrassment policy in their handbooks. Why bother if these policies are only to allow her to bully those souls she selects?
Bully... I wonder if her harrassment policy outlaws bullying tactics by the administration?
Tempting, but I'm not going there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.