The Spokesman Review has an editorial in which they chastise WSU President V. Lane Rawlins for failing to criticize hecklers who drowned out a student's performance of the student's play called "Passion of the Musical." I gather that the play is an intentionally offensive spoof of "The Passion of the Christ" and, according to the Spokesman Review’s editorial, "contained racial epithets, ethnic stereotypes and irreverent jokes about religion."

The editorial is mostly right. Allowing a "heckler’s veto" is directly contrary to the freedom of expression - a core value of any decent university. The proper response to offensive speech is more speech - not censorship, certainly not mob censorship.

My minor complaint, however, is in the closing paragraph in which the editorial stated that Mr. Rawlins sided with the hecklers against the First Amendment.

Bzzzt, wrong.

The First Amendment protects religion and speech from government interference – it has nothing to do with private individuals. If you advocate a stupid position and your neighbors call you a nitwit you don't have a First Amendment violation. In fact the First Amendment actually protects their right to call you a nitwit.

Too bad that a newspaper doesn't understand the First Amendment. Pathetic, isn't it?
- posted by Thomas @ 4:19 PM