A November 5 to Remember
November 5, 2009 • By John Scott,
Print This Post
Email This Post
Just as the last triumphs of victory over free speech on campus faded, the university, again through Judicial Affairs, defiantly stood by their inability to recognize the First Amendment’s importance and the rights that come with it. This time, Judicial Affairs charged Tim Chapman, Breeze editor-in-chief, and Katie Hibson, contributing news writer, for trying to conduct their jobs and gather information concerning a recent peeping Tom incident in Hillside Hall.
Historically, questions concerning the right to freely publish news have frequently arisen. Much less mentioned, and the question raised in this specific case, however, is the right to gather news. The notion that news can be published, if the ability to gather information is unnecessarily limited, is unfeasible and illogical. Inherently, the right by agents of the press to collect news is protected by the First Amendment.
Because the news gathering right is part of the First Amendment, this also means it is limited by other constitutional rights, such as the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Certainly agents of the press cannot break into one’s private residence to gather information and must respect the wishes of those owners when asked to leave.
In this case, no resident of Hillside Hall is claiming Chapman or Hibson violated their rights. On the contrary, both times a Breeze reporter was in Hillside, he or she was either invited in or accompanied by a Hillside resident. Only the resident adviser and the hall director were adamant about the reporters leaving, but neither cited any reason why. Some argue the impetus for the demand was disorderly conduct — one of the judicial charges against Chapman and Hibson. It seems impossible, however, as not a single shred of evidence supports the claim.
Why the residence life staff has repeatedly refused to comment on the issue is baffling. Days later, “Brad” posted an online comment on the Oct. 26 Breeze news story, “Police, Judicial Charge Breeze reporters,” claiming the university was conspiring to cover up the reporting of the peeping Tom incident.
As astounding a claim as Brad makes, it was even more shocking to see a response to “Brad’s” claim from Andy Perrine, JMU associate vice president of Communications and Marketing. Perrine clarified that the university sent out a “Timely Notice” concerning the peeping Tom incident and even explicitly mentioned he worked for JMU.
Perrine was correct, although he failed to mention the university is required by law to send out the “Timely Notice.”
“Brad” responded by sticking with his claim the university tried to downplay the event. “Keep talking big guy, because every time you open your mouth on here it just makes you and JMU look that much more guilty.” So often do online comments turn into personal attacks; it’s useless to try to argue with individuals who use them.
Instead of recognizing the uselessness of combating personal attacks on a blog and realizing how unprofessional petty banter looks to everyone reading the article’s comments, Perrine decided to respond with what he meant to be a “funny” remark: “Actually Brad, I’m only 5 foot 9 — really not that big at all. But thanks.”
Perrine said in a phone interview, “the interaction [was] unfair” because, “[he] was there named, and Brad was anonymous.” Perrine justified his remark as a personal defense: “I’m not going to go away personally.” The problem is Perrine clearly identified himself as a JMU employee in the first online comment, and therefore should have continued to act in that professional capacity in his second.
Not only does the online interaction damage the university’s reputation of adequately addressing students’ concerns, but Brad is right — the university looks guiltier then before Perrine interjected online.
In closing, this is the second time this academic year the university has decided to neglect the very individuals protected by the First Amendment. The students must rally together and demand this type of judicial trial and error will not stand. I ask you to join me outside of Frederikson Hall today from 3 to 4 p.m. to protest during the hearings of Breeze reporters.
Let us make this a 5th of November the administration will never forget.
John Scott is a senior writing, rhetoric & technical communication major.
Contact John Scott at scott2ja@jmu.edu
Comments
9 Responses to “A November 5 to Remember”
Got something to say?
Check Out New Videos!
March 4, 2010 Issue in Print
2010 Baseball & Softball Guide
They were trespassing and soliciting students in their home. That’s like the Breeze chillin’ in my living room while I’m in my bedroom and when I go to leave my house they ask me questions for a newspaper. Hello, this is my HOME. Same thing.
p.s. it doesn’t in any way violate their first amendment rights.
Really? I think that the Breeze needs to stop acting like their “journalists” have been imprisoned and tortured. You guys know that you violated policy. Who goes back to a building when they got kicked out once on the same day? The Breeze already had it’s story form interviewing residents outside the hall. What would be accomplished by going inside except to possibly upset the residents who have already been dealing with a bad situation? Judicial is only going to give out a slap on the wrist, and the said reporters can blabber on to future employers about how their sacred rights were violated in the line of duty and how some dude somewhere wrote blogs posts about them. But I guess if it makes your paper look relevant to stir up a non-issue.
John,
The freedom of the press is not so broad as to allow reporters to enter into (and stay after being asked to leave) buildings and other non-public areas. That’s the charge against the reporters, isn’t it?
I suspect that if the evidence bears out that they were invited in by or accompanied by residents the entire time, they will be found ‘not guilty.’ I understand that you, as a Breeze writer, believe this is the case - but there are two sides to every story and since Residence Life hasn’t been willing to let you in on what their side is and what evidence supports it, I can’t imagine that you have any information to back up your claim that the charges are wholly unsupported by evidence.
Secondly, the first amendment does not give reporters carte blanche to enter into residence halls to ask questions. Further, Judicial and Residence Life certainly have an interest in knowing who is coming into residence halls (especially in the wake of a peeping incident). I can’t imagine it would have been that hard for the reporters to arrange the interview outside of the halls once asked to leave.
Finally, you may want to do some Constitutional law research. The First Amendment is not limited by the Fourth, Fifth, or any other Amendment. The Amendments extend rights to the People by limiting the scope of Government. That a press member cannot break into someone’s house has nothing to do with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure - the member of the press is a private citizen, not a government official.
John wrote, “Much less mentioned, and the question raised in this specific case, however, is the right to gather news.”
Where is that right found? This is no different than a Breeze reporter entering a private residence, and I’m baffled why you claim it is.
Then, John wrote, “In this case, no resident of Hillside Hall is claiming Chapman or Hibson violated their rights.”
Clearly the HD and RA thought the reporters had, and they are residents, too. Not only this, Katie returned, and brought someone else with her, after she had been asked to leave. That is trespassing, whether or not you’re a member of the “press,” and I use that term loosely. The two are lucky they weren’t charged legally.
Further, you write, “Not only does the online interaction damage the university’s reputation of adequately addressing students’ concerns, but Brad is right — the university looks guiltier then before Perrine interjected online.”
So, The Breeze should irresponsibly exercise rights that might or might not exist, but University employees should not exercise their rights to defend against baseless attacks - free speech rights - that certainly do exist? Give me a break!
This “newspaper” has become so out of touch, I don’t know what can save it. I have read more newsworthy stories and more valid opinions from tabloids than from this thing. Please, for the sake of us in the university who rely on you for news and thought-provoking opinions - not shock-value and sensationalism - please clean yourselves up.
Nice column.
Disagree with the above. This column bares NO resemblance to anything slightly objective. You are the press. You are preaching the misconceptions of your paper. This is why so many people have stopped reading the breeze this year and I have heard it described several times as little more than a tabloid.
But good for you for so stubbornly supporting your boss’s cause.
You’re an idiot, it has nothing to do with the first amendment. This column is a joke.
“This column bares NO resemblance to anything slightly objective”
Ummm….because it’s an opinion column. Don’t knock the guy for expressing his opinion, considering that’s the point of an “opinion column.”
Maybe people who complain about what they read need to pay more attention to what it is they’re actually reading.
John, can you please tell us what exactly this has to do with the 4th or 5th Amendment? I mean, after you consult your editor of course.