So I guess there's more to be said about personal responsibility and how it relates to living around other people. But as long as we live in a country offering freedom of speech, there will always be more to be said.
Last Saturday's Late Nite featured some of the regular comedians of BSU Stand-Up. Part of the line-up was Desiree Longworth, known among the performers for her controversial content. As this type of story usually goes, things were said, people were offended and Longworth was reprimanded for her act. Though she stayed away from her normal palette of profanity, she still managed to remain true to her knack for unwavering honesty, which some felt was too obscene for an official University function.
The incident with Longworth is a perfect example of the conflict we continue to face in a society devoted to the freedoms of speech, expression, and press. On one hand, a college student was telling honest stories from her life for the entertainment of others. On the other hand, an event put on by Ball State University featured language which could be considered offensive, thereby communicating a link between Ball State and that language. Where is the line to be drawn between "edgy" and "just plain wrong"?
In a community of adults, is there any such thing as "just plain wrong"?
But now it's time to introduce the sticky subject of censorship. The accusation of "Censorship!" is akin to the severity of shouting "Witch!", "Communist!" or "Terrorist!" and must be treated with care and respect, though one important difference exists: the definitions of "witch," "communist," and "terrorist" have all been agreed upon, whereas "censorship" and its practicalities still throw us for a loop. What is the role of an organization telling someone exactly how far "too far" is? Can we really agree on the rules of a new, nationwide morality?
Tell me: exactly how united are these United States?
If America is as pluralist a society as it appears, then no such morality can exist. Beyond the rights of each American to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there doesn't seem to be much room for the establishment of restricted speech. Taste isn't an issue if we can't decide what constitutes it. Legislating the words used on television where children might access them is one thing, but the expectation that an entertainer "clean up" for a room of adults at a college function is quite another. (Profanity should be like alcohol: you can use it if you can use it responsibly.)
Longworth's responsibility to her audiences mirrors the audiences' responsibility to her; she should be mindful of their sensibilities while they should mindful of the locations of each exit from the room. The nothing that stands in the way of controversial messages is the same nothing that stands in the way of offended audience members.
Perhaps Voltaire said it best: "We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongues, at our peril, risk, and hazard." And if that doesn't convince you, fast forward a few hundred years to Tommy Smothers, who said that "the only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen." Instead of controlling the words coming from someone else's mouth, it will do more good to control how you respond.
Write to Joel at jtmiller@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
