Responsible free speech

To the editor:

You won't be surprised to learn that I disagree with Thomas Mitchell's characterization of my position regarding UNLV's Rebel Yell newspaper and an advertisement that appeared in the publication and was considered offensive by some (Oct. 18 column). I do not believe that we should all think alike. In fact, I have spent my academic life arguing just the opposite.

I abhor conformity. For that reason, I opposed the speech code put forward by Chris Clark last spring because it was clearly chilling of free speech. I don't want some authority figure on campus making decisions of what might be "offensive," and then having a student or faculty member threatened because they made some non-conventional statement in a way that offended someone.

It is too easy to offend, and I don't believe that an intellectual community thrives when we over-emphasize "civility."

I do, however, believe in taking responsibility for one's actions. That means to me that we take full responsibility for expressing speech that might be offensive to some. If we do make that choice of expression, let's be conscious of the impact we are having on others. Let's not just express ideas or, in this case publish commercial advertising, simply because it is sensationalistic or titillating. Rather, let's consider what purpose doing so might serve, and weigh the benefits against the costs.

The costs of this "Juicy Lucy" depiction is reinforcing demeaning stereotypes. What is the benefit to the students and the paper of publishing an ad that compares a woman to a cow? Let's think it through.

Students should have free rein to make the decisions of what goes into their paper. That is the policy on this campus, and it is a good one. But I want members of the Rebel Yell student management to think through what they are doing and why. That's part of being a responsible participant in an intellectual community, and part of what the learning experience of publishing a paper should be about.

There is such a thing as editorial discretion, and part of the job of being student editors is to have a policy on such matters. I wanted to advise the students running the paper that the First Amendment does not compel them to publish everything that is submitted to them. My motivation was not to "scold," as Mr. Mitchell stated. It was an attempt to ask the students to be more thoughtful about what they were doing.

Sylvia R. Lazos

LAS VEGAS

THE WRITER IS THE JUSTICE MYRON LEAVITT PROFESSOR OF LAW AT UNLV'S WILLIAM S. BOYD SCHOOL OF LAW.