As I read with glee the comments directed towards (sic) me in Monday’s Commonwealth Times, I felt the need to respond.
As the President (sic) of the Free Speech Foundation, a registered student organization at VCU, I have more than a vested interest in free speech on campus. However, while I came down on the staff of the (sic) Commonwealth Times for publishing the offensive article by Alex Jones, I did so to make a point, one made for me by the outpouring of students standing up for free speech.
As a writer I too enjoy the freedom of speech. However, as a former editorial writer for the (sic) CT I did not enjoy that. They exercised their “editorial discretion” last fall and censored (meaning rejected publishing) an article of mine because it was too offensive and did not meet their “fact-based” editorial guideline. Where does that line exist? Why does Alex Jones get to criticize women in an article and I cannot criticize Virginia government? The three prong (sic) pitch-forked (sic) point I seek to make is that the editorial discretion the (sic) CT staff claims to have is bullcrap, to exercise another point made in my email (sic), which is that if the staff of the (sic) CT is going to allow curse words in it be (sic) by mistake or purpose, they can’t be abiding by “high journalistic principles” which they so often claim make up the “editorial discretion” they claim to possess.
The question I seek to find the answer to is, why are two editorial standards, one for other students and another for me? (sic) If they are going to throw a flag on me for going over the limit, why aren’t they throwing it on someone else for doing similar activities? If Alex Jones can criticize women, then why can’t I criticize government? Political speech is amongst the highest protected (sic) speech. If the (sic) CT staff is being subjective to (sic) editorial content then that is matter of taste, something free speech does not differentiate. Free Speech (sic) is absolute to all.
Along with this letter to the editor I have also resubmitted the editorial that was rejected for publication in its original form so that you can be the judge. I doubt the staff of the (sic) CT will see fit to publish it, proving once again while they are spineless and claim to stand by the first amendment (sic) and free speech only when it is convenient to them (sic).
The other point I sought to make in my email (sic) to interested students was that there is no accountability for the average student against the staff of the (sic) CT. The CT staff can run amuck (sic) with the student’s (sic) money, and we have no recourse, because YOU have no vote as to who holds the position of executive editor, only select students, the majority of whom are mass communications majors have this right.
This past year the (sic) CT has been run as badly as it ever has and certainly the editors have all massively failed at their jobs. While myself (sic) and the 430 plus students who cast their vote for me in the last SGA election believe this to be true, each of them have no ability to vote and (sic) express their view (sic) that a change needs to come.
Mike Dickinson
Editor’s reply: The editorial Mike Dickinson submitted for publication during the fall semester was not censored, rather the piece contained potentially libelous statements and therefore was not able to be published. While the editors of The Commonwealth Times support and encourage free speech it would be negligent of the editors to publish potentially libelous information. Also, Dickinson misrepresents the facts about The Commonwealth Times’ voting procedures. In accordance with the bylaws of The Commonwealth Times anyone who has been published within the past year is eligible to vote for the executive and managing editors of the newspaper whether they are mass communications majors or not.