Responsible free speech 
October 12, 2009 by Sylvia R. Lazos
Self-censorship is important for derogatory speech
As a constitutional law professor and as a civil rights advocate, I believe strongly that the UNLV campus community must safeguard the right of free speech of students, faculty and staff.
We are an intellectual community and it is through the diversity of ideas and perspectives that we learn from each other and create a community of knowledge that enriches all of us.
A campus should loathe censoring any idea just because we disagree with it or find it distasteful. For this reason, I opposed the draft speech code that Founding Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion, Chris Clark, proposed for the campus last spring.
Free speech has been very important in the history of civil rights and social justice in the U.S. It is because of free speech rights that Cesar Chavez was able to picket the grape growers outside their fields in California for fair wages without getting arrested for trespass.
When NAACP leader Charles Evers urged followers to boycott white stores in Alabama, he used colorful and hyperbolic political speech (“If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we’re gonna break your damn neck…”).
The First Amendment protected him from being thrown in jail.
But there is another side to speech.
Derogatory speech, when directed at minorities, women and gay men and lesbians, can reinforce ideas that fuel discrimination and reinforce cultural stereotypes that set up one group as being inferior as against the majority.
In a campus environment where everyone’s voice should be valued and where all voices belong in vigorous debate, we must be careful to act in a way that is truly inclusive.
About three years ago, an anti-immigration group took out a billboard ad at the corner of Bonanza and Eastern, an area that is more than 50 percent Latina/o. It depicted a rising “brown tide” taking over a map of the U.S., with the words “stop immigration.”
Under the First Amendment, the City of Las Vegas could not pass an ordinance prohibiting the ad.
However, the mayor of Las Vegas asked the commercial company providing the billboard space to exercise self-censorship. Mayor Oscar Goodman argued that this ad reflected badly on Las Vegas and the spirit of tolerance of which Las Vegans are rightly proud.
Goodman added that Las Vegas valued its Latino immigrants and that they were an important part of this community. This company agreed and the ad came down within days.
As this “real life” story shows, the most important part of free speech is self-censorship. Media exercise self-censorship because they understand that they have a responsibility to be an accessible speech forum while ensuring that ideas are expressed accurately, fairly and respectfully.
The Rebel Yell, as an independently run student newspaper, controls the content of the newspaper. The Rebel Yell’s student management can legally decline advertisement placements that they find to be not in the best interest of the publication and its audience.
The “Juicy Lucy” Rebel Yell ad, showing a woman’s hot, naked body with sections of a cow drawn on her (“rump,” “rib” etc) may be amusing for some and it is probably good business for the hamburger joint.
The question for The Rebel Yell and its audience, the campus community, is whether this is the kind of speech that reflects who we are and how we want to be perceived by the outside world.
We should all be able to see the merit of Anthony Guy Patricia’s argument that this ad is demeaning and degrading and reinforces stereotypes of women as something akin to a cow – “tender” enough to be cut up for male pleasure.
Cultural historians argue that it is such commercial images that reinforce discriminatory stereotypes, such as that women can only be taken seriously as objects of desire.
Such stereotypes limit women’s potential because these stereotypes trap women into capacities tied to their “female nature.” Certainly we have moved beyond that kind of thinking; nonetheless, demeaning depictions reinforce lingering negative stereotypes.
The best way to avoid heavy-handed campus speech codes is for all key actors in the campus community to exercise their free speech rights responsibly.
Respectfully, I request that the student management of The Rebel Yell take into account their position of leadership on campus and reconsider whether this ad is responsible speech.
[This comment has been removed due to terms of use violation]
Very eloquently put and spot on!
Thank you, Professor Lazos.
Thank you Professor Lazos for your input into this matter.
Thank you, Professor Lazos.
I must say that I find this article a bit confusing. The author appears to be advocating for an issue that has already been decided. The RY wrote a lengthy article stating they thought this ad was in the best interest of the paper and its readers. They chose to exercise their first amendment rights by placing the ad in the paper because they needed ad revenue. To blame the RY for an advertisement that the Burger Joint created is unfair to me. The sole blame should be placed on The Burger Joint if you find the ad to be offensive. The RY will not stay in business if they choose to turn down every advertisement that could be deemed offensive.
Lastly, I would like to say that people arguing against these ads because they feel they will alleviate negative stereotypes against women are wrong. Some people are plain ignorant, I mean we all know racism is terrible, but we still have racists, we all know murder is bad, but we still have murderers. I don’t subscribe to the theory that these ads are what create negative images of women, I believe it is more to do with ignorant people holding these ideas. If you want to argue that ads like this perpetuate this behavior, I will not disagree with that, but I don’t believe they are the real source behind the problem. And I want to qualify that I do not believe many people are ignorant, I believe it is an extremely small minority.
We had a small victory people as this MUST have been bad for their business. Here’s what I wrote on the other article:
I wasn’t supposed to do this at work but I just looked and “Juicy Lucy” is actually gone from the Grind Burger’s main FB page and not just moved this time. She is COMPLETELY gone as is the fan page created for her.
I know Prof. Lazos to be an extremely smart professor and well versed in consitutional law (much more than I) but it seems that there is a flaw in the argument. She points out that constitutionally nothing can be done about the ad, but she then states that the RY should take it down. How does that work?
I agree that the ad is a terrible idea and I wouldn’t use it if I were in their shoes. But I’m not and you’re not. This is the RY’s and the burger place’s choice and as it is entirely legal I don’t understand the problem. In a town where we have nearly naked women on billboards, strip shows and legal prostitution not to far away (and illegal prostitution here in town). It seems weird to me that so much hate has been used to attack this ad when we have much larger issues that our town unfortunately oppitimizes.
Unfotunately, this type of speech is protected (like pornography) and as Prof. Lazo pointed out the reason we have such large sections of protective speech is so our government cannot stop the minorities from making thier arguments. It seems to me that “self censorship” is still censorship by the powers in control. I guess if we follow the arguements of those against the ad, it would mean that the first amendment extends only so far as it is a subject that those in power like otherwise the “Oscar Goodman’s” of the world can make a “request” that the speech be removed or else.
Derogatory speech, when directed at minorities, women and gay men and lesbians, can reinforce ideas that fuel discrimination and reinforce cultural stereotypes that set up one group as being inferior as against the majority.
_________________
Hmmm, not one thing from the professor about derogatory comments directed at hetero white guys. So, I am guessing she is perfectly accepting of that. Well, I am not, so I hereby demand that this professor practice what she preaches and self-censor herself and ask for the removal of this hate piece. And if she doesn’t do this, I demand the RY editorial staff to remove it. I also demand an investigation into what is actually be taught in the professors class, I sense hateful shenanigans are afoot