The view expressed herein reflect the view of the author, and does not reflect the opinion of Obiter or its Editorial Board. Obiter Dicta stands for freedom of expression, and commits to reflecting in its print editions the variety of viewpoints submitted for publication. We always welcome student feedback, whether we agree with it or not. This is one such viewpoint.
Against the backdrop of the assassination of Iranian General, Qasem Soleimani, Obiter Dicta sent out an email joking that students should submit “drafts” to the paper before the editorial board “gets drafted” into war. Soon after, the editors sent out another email, this one referring to their “privilege” (presumably living in a country where there is no risk of draft) and apologising for any “harm” caused by their joke.
While the situation in Iran may be frightening for some students, it’s disturbing that a newspaper feels the need to apologize for mere humour. The apology sends the message that a newspaper is not free to print words that offend people, and nearly everything worth saying these days is going to offend someone. If a newspaper is so concerned about people’s sensitivities that it’s going to retract a mildly offensive joke, then we can logically expect it to apply an equally restrictive standard to its journalism. That would be a shame because journalists need to ruffle feathers in order to write articles worth reading. They can’t do that if they’re afraid that every little thing said will lead to calls for retraction.
Obiter’s suggestion that this joke inflicts “harm” on students is also problematic because it implies that mere words have the potential to cause real harm. But no student was harmed by Obiter’s email (beyond perhaps hurt feelings); neither was any student saved from impending doom by their apology. Mere words, short of straight-forward calls for violence, are harmless, even if uttered by supposedly powerful and privileged Obiter editors. Accepting the fact that speech cannot inflict real harm is necessary for speech to remain free. After all, if words were like bullets, they would have to be regulated like firearms.
Having said this, I suspect Obiter’s apology was never meant to do right by students but rather it was an attempt to appease the members of the student body that took offense to Obiter’s decision to have a little fun. There is nothing wrong with students writing angry emails at newspaper editors. On the contrary, I would regard any passionate criticism triggered by an uncrossed T or an undotted I as welcome participation in public discourse. However, the editors must not be pushovers. In this case, they could have published the criticism of the offended party as a letter to the editor while reaffirming their right to write what they please, independent of whose feelings may be hurt in the process.