Freedom of speech before censorship

Brendan Guilford

Editor-in-Chief

Mr. Thad Hopkins’ editorial ‘Chapel a cesspool of sin and blasphemy’ in the January 20th, 2004 edi-tion of The Almanian regarding the alleged “misuse” of the Alma College Chapel, as well as his religious disagreement concern-ing several members of the Alma College religious community, particularly Reverend Vogel, has created an unprecedented amount of controversy on campus.

I wish to make the following sentiment clear and final: the Almanian does not endorse one set of religious views over any others, but stands by the tenets of fairness, decency, tolerance, and open-mindedness. Mr. Hopkins' editorial expresses the views of one person, and one alone. He does not speak for the staff as a whole, nor do his views expressed on January 20th in any way represent the ideals that The Almanian was founded upon.

The first amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the citizens of our great country one of the most basic and cherished principles of humanity: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Freedom of speech has, since its adoption on December 15, 1791, been universally respected and vigorously defended by a multitude of individuals, organizations, and movements. At times the first amendment has protected those whom American society as a whole has wished to censure and prevent from disseminating unpopular political, religious, or moralistic views to the public domain. Oftentimes, the “unpopular” viewpoint is disliked for good reason. Infinitesimally small minorities of Americans have voiced hate speech, misogyny, and dangerous or violent rhetoric in the past or present, and first amendment rights have protected these people’s speech.

The Almanian has a well-defined policy for submitted opinions that all editorials must meet in order to be eligible for print, and all those that do meet those guidelines are printed whenever possible. Editorials submitted cannot be vulgar or libelous. Mr. Hopkins' editorial, while offensive to many, does not fail either test. He was expressing his religiously-based opinions in a public forum that welcomes submissions on any topic. The Almanian did not print the piece to incite mass hysteria, offend Reverend Vogel or any others, or be covered in the Morning Sun. Hopkin’s editorial was run to protect the journalistic integrity that would come into serious question had the work not been printed. To refuse Mr. Hopkins’ submission despite the fact that it violated neither of our main standards for print would be to censure his religious beliefs and infringe on his ability to express them freely.

It is saddening to realize that some still do not appreciate religious diversity and equality at the dawn of the 21st century, and it is my opinion that Mr. Hopkins is misguided in his views. However, I hope that Mr. Hopkin’s comments, and the massive response by the campus can be channeled into a positive force for understanding and tolerance regarding such a controversial topic.

Top