COLUMN: Kinko's: the True Defenders of Free Speech

From David Lynn's "Straight Outta Kansas," Fall '93 From David Lynn's "Straight Outta Kansas," Fall '93It's hard to believe that First Amendment rights are so problematic here at Penn. Over the past six months, I have watched the campus debate concerning free speech and free press with a great deal of interest. As a former frequent guest columnist and present bi-weekly columnist, I have been particularly interested in this discussion especially as it relates to the Daily Pennsylvanian. The DP failed the community when it published some extremely offensive remarks by a columnist last semester. For the record, late last semester I wrote a letter that was published in the DP in which I applauded the DP's defense of the columnist's right to speak his mind in print without punishment from the Judicial Inquiry Office. At that time, the JIO was overstepping its bounds by not following stated University policies with regard to the writer. Abuse of power by a University administrator is much more frightening than anything a student can write in a campus newspaper. Still, the DP is not required to publish offensive remarks by anyone. The DP would probably draw the line at publishing the views of those who encourage child pornography or acts of terrorism. The editors could have refused to publish the offensive remarks, but they did not. As this debate rages on, those who were offended have squared off against the newspaper and its allies. However, battles of this type are not won on principle, nor are they won by committees or administrators. They are won by those who frame the debate in pragmatic terms. In this case, it is necessary to beat the DP at its own game by using its own tactics and its most potent weapon – the First Amendment. Contrary to what the DP might have you believe, it is not the guardian of First Amendment rights on campus. Kinko's is. Instead of removing newspapers, students could have made posters that said "The DP presents (fill in obnoxious columnist of choice's name)." Under this headline could have been an offensive quote with the date of publication in the DP. Finally, in big bold letters, the poster would say "Operating costs for the DP partially defrayed by (fill in name of favorite DP advertiser)!" Note that the approximate cost of 400 letter size black and white posters is $20. Not only is this free speech, it's cheap free speech. And its effective. Imagine walking into an DP advertiser's business at 9:00 A.M., saying "Hi. We just put 400 of these up all over campus, and we thought you should know. Give us a call if you want to talk about it." The debate suddenly changes. Free speech and free press are no longer the issues. Instead, advertisers are forced to ask whether they wish to be associated with published remarks that the community deems offensive. But who are these DP advertisers fall into three major categories – University area businesses, University groups and departments, and recruiting corporations. Three groups that should be easy to win over. Also, they are surely less stubborn than the DP editorial board. The University area businesses are easy to win over because most of them depend on the goodwill of students to thrive. If word gets around that there are negative consequences for advertising in the DP, they will withdraw their advertising dollars. The University advertisers might prove more challenging. If the name of a University department appeared at the bottom of such a poster, it would set off a heated discussion concerning whether University dollars should be used to advertise in the DP. Some faculty and staff would accuse students of trying to censor the DP through economics. Others would counter by arguing that the University does not advertise in Playboy, Penthouse, and other offensive publications (although it has the right to) and should advertise in publications that are in line with the University's mission statement and policy of non-discrimination. A few phone calls from parents, prospective students, and the national press would end this discussion in favor of the aggrieved students. The third large source of advertising income for the DP comes from companies that recruit on campus. Some companies go so far as to place full-page ads in the DP. A recruiter who spends close to $2,000 for an ad would be very embarrassed if her company's name ended up at the bottom of a poster. The national press' view of Penn would be different if the Wall Street Journal had written an editorial debating the ethics of a large company advertising in an offensive campus newspaper instead of newspaper removals. The whole world might still be watching Penn, but for a different reason. Corporate recruiting money would dry up in a hurry. See there's no administrative policies, no speech codes, no removals. Just good ol' fashioned First Amendment free speech. These tactics will only work against columnists who are truly offensive (if 200 students press charges against a columnist, this probably qualifies him/her as offensive). It will not work against those who are merely politically incorrect. We do not need a speech code to defend us from obnoxious, racist, or divisive speech if we are willing to be responsible for occasionally defending ourselves. We will gain more from individuals who protest hate speech than from committees that intend to squash it. We need not be victims. We can protect ourselves and our community while affirming the Constitutional rights of everyone in it. From straight outta Kansas, this is David Lynn signing off. David Lynn is a 1989 Wharton graduate and the Executive Director of the University City Hospitality Coalition. Straight Outta Kansas appeared alternate Tuesdays.