Liberty University

A New Report Details Pro-Trump Censorship of Liberty University's Student Paper

"I didn't feel comfortable being told what I couldn't write about by President Falwell."

|

|||YURI GRIPAS/REUTERS/Newscom
YURI GRIPAS/REUTERS/Newscom

A rift between the Liberty University president and an on-campus newspaper indicates that campus free speech battles are not solely an issue for liberal colleges. Jerry Falwell, Jr., the president of one of the largest Christian universities in America, is a very vocal supporter of Republicans and conservatives and that support has crossed over to his college's identity. Earlier in the month, Falwell invoked his students to criticize Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not supporting President Trump enough, citing their low attendance at a 2016 event as proof that they did not back Sessions. Now World Magazine alleges that Falwell played a direct role in censoring the political views of Liberty's Champion, the on-campus paper. The alleged censorship mostly applied to criticisms of Trump.

In one allegation, Falwell reportedly directed staffers in 2016 to state the presidential candidate for which they were voting. At another point, Falwell told another editor to not run former Sports Editor Joel Schmieg's column disavowing Trump's "locker room talk" controversy. Schmieg then attempted to share his thoughts on Facebook, but later resigned when a faculty adviser communicated to him that he should refrain from repeating the action in the future. According to World Magazine, Schmieg said, "I didn't feel comfortable being told what I couldn't write about by President Falwell."

The other allegations follow a similar model of faculty members not only revising stories that were critical of Trump, but of staff, including Falwell himself, advising students not to cover certain events on campus. In April, Champion staff accused Falwell of telling them to not cover a controversial "Red Letter Revival." The event was comprised of progressive evangelical Christians who sought to pray against a culture of "toxic evangelicalism." The event featured a handful of Liberty student speakers. When former Assistant News Editor Erin Covey reached out to Falwell requesting a statement, he reportedly emailed her saying, "Let's not run any articles about the event." Covey later told Religious News Service, "I do think that currently the level of oversight we have does make it difficult to pursue the accurate journalism that we're taught in classes."

About a week after the event, Bruce Kirk, dean of the School of Communication and Digital Content, informed the students that they would be interviewed for staff positions for the following year, a first in Champion history. In a conference call with Falwell, Kirk, and the staff, Kirk advised the students to put "journalism aside for a second" to remind them that someone else "decides what you do and what you don't say or do," according to the World Magazine report. After the passing of another week, Kirk informed former Editor-in-Chief Jack Panyard that the paper would be doing away with his position, reorganizing its structure, and that Panyard would not be part of the operations any longer. Because of this, Panyard also lost the $3,000-per-semester scholarship that came with his position.

Champion staff are now reportedly required to go through a multi-stage approval process for their stories that requires input from the faculty adviser, a panel of faculty members, and Falwell.

This is not the first time Liberty students have found themselves at odds with the university. In 2015, Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) announced his presidential bid at the school. As Reason reported, a number of students took issue with the setting as Cruz announced his campaign during a mandatory morning convocation for students. One student complained that the setting made it seem as though Cruz had the unanimous support of the nearly 10,000 people in the room. It also appeared that Falwell encouraged the students to stand in support, though he later asserted in a statement that students were "free to cheer or boo as they see fit."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

133 responses to “A New Report Details Pro-Trump Censorship of Liberty University's Student Paper

  1. Jesus why would you go to a school where it was against the rules to fuck.

    1. Also the most shocking part of this story is people being surprised by a religious institution isn’t all that interested in pursuing truth.

      1. As opposed to its secular counterparts who are most definitely dedicated to truth

        1. of course. They fucking love science.

      2. “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
        -Karl Marx

        Karl Marx considered religion a barrier to The Revolution.

        1. He also was right about people like Falwell just as Barry Goldwater was right about Falwell’s father.

          Jesus freaks who cozy up to Caesar shall spend eternity with Caesar.

          1. As opposed to the irreligious freaks who cozy up to Caesar

            1. Why is it always ‘as opposed to’ rather than ‘in addition to’?
              I don’t see anything that suggests a belief that this is an ‘all and only’ situation.

              It does seem that the commentariat tends to treat everything in terms of ‘all and only’, which is ungracious at best. This applies from Tony to lc1789 and beyond.
              Always cracking the divisions wider is just not productive. Nor is treating them as inherent or intractable. Yes, sometimes they are, but not nearly as often as they are projected to be.

              1. Only one group has their faith used as a rationale for their stupid actions

    2. “why would you go to a school where it was against the rules to fuck”

      Meh, forbidden fruit always tastes better. Sex was much more fun in the adolescent days of sneaking through windows and backseat acrobatics.

      1. You’re doing it wrong…

    3. Because it’s not.

      “Sexual relations outside of a biblically ordained marriage between a natural-born man and a natural-born woman are
      not permissible at Liberty University.”

      That’s a fairly major exception, history shows it’s broad enough to drive a truck through.

      1. Interesting that it says “biblically ordained marriage” rather than legal marriage. Was that done to make that hole a little bigger?

        1. They’re evangelical Protestants, not natural-law theorists or legal positivists.

          1. Also nowadays, “legal marriage” in practice means whatever the Supreme Court feels like calling marriage.

            1. What I was thinking, though, was that the wording might allow an excuse for a couple caught breaking the rules, if it were decided they were “biblically” married even though they did not have a marriage license.

              1. If they were biblically married then the church would have a record of such union. This isn’t hard stuff. Marriages occurred for centuries without state oversight

                1. That depends on how they’re defining “biblically married”. Since they don’t say, it could just mean they jumped over a broom.

                  1. Whatever their faith tradition requires

                    1. Which, as I said, could be a large loophole.

      2. Um. Pretty sure no one is naturally born a man or a woman.

        1. ^ He fucking loves science

  2. You guys have strong principles when it’s the right principals involved

  3. I wonder where the obligatory “to be sures”, denunciations of the students beliefs and the clarifications on where the writer stands politically on this article?

    1. I know it seems weird, but when the beliefs of the students coincide with the beliefs of the writer, no denunciations are necessary.

      1. lol, wut? How do we know what the beliefs of the students are when they weren’t published?

        1. The beliefs in question in the post are about journalistic independence.

  4. Censorship or owner/publisher dictating editorial policy?

    1. This occurred to me too. Seyton’s squishy ‘Can we get a judge’s ruling?’ on Twitter censorship as contrasted to the full-throated censorship being performed by Falwell is (not at all) surprising.

    2. This. It is rather embarrassing for an ostensibly libertarian publication criticizing the editorial decisions of another publisher by mischaracterizing them as censorship.

      TDS is a terrible thing.

      1. There is a strong difference between the management of a publication and a school paper. Schools have always given far more deference.

        In addition, I find the concept of firing people for opposing opposite political views quite abhorrent in any case, and well worth public shaming. While I would oppose legal consequences for such a thing, there is nothing un-libertarian about pointing out such a thing. If nothing else, it confirms that my children will never be going there, and I hope others will do the same.

  5. Yeah, this is stupid, but you guys have already staked out the position that these publicly funded institutions that masquerade as private institutions are totes free to do what they like. That’s the justification for abandoning all principles whenever Ben Shapiro or anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders attempts to speak at a *private* university at the invitation of a student group.

    It should also be noted that Bernie Sanders spoke at Liberty University without incident, so maybe they are no worse than their left-wing university counterparts.

    1. It is a school funded newspaper. It seems to me that if the school is paying the bills, it should get to make the rules. It is not like these guys published their own paper and the school got pissed off.

      1. It is a school funded newspaper. It seems to me that if the school is paying the bills, it should get to make the rules.

        Journalists don’t typically believe that the people paying the bills get to make editorial decisions, though.

        1. Haha, that’s funny

        2. Journalists don’t typically believe that the people paying the bills get to make editorial decisions

          And astute readers recognize that’s bullshit.

        3. It seems this student paper has precisely as much freedom of the press as any other publication. Or did I miss the part where the government was dictating the editorial policy?

          1. That’s probably why they’re complaining about the school administration, not the government.

            1. Almost like complaining about a private company censoring. Your principles are so subjective it’s almost like they’re nonexistent

              1. Wtf are you even trying to say I’m saying?

                1. You love censorship from private actors, so long as it’s the “right people” getting censored

                  1. Not stanning for assholes isn’t the same as loving censorship.

                    1. Peter Van Buren and Scott Horton are “assholes”, because they’re not resist-y enough for you. Maybe if they complained about gender constructs, rather than state sanctioned murder, you’d feel differently

            2. Which is fine, but at this school I would posit that they went to the wrong institution if they thought it didn’t have a clear and obvious bias.

              It’s the same reason why the New York Times hires lunatics for their editorial board.

              Critique them for being jackasses all day long, but this isn’t a ‘freedom of the press’ issue. What I find most amusing, of course, is that most journalists don’t seem to understand freedom of the press. Bizarre. At least these ‘journalists’ have an excuse, they aren’t journalists.

              1. I mean, it’s not like I went from respecting Liberty U to not respecting it over this story. But it did make me think a little bit less of them than I already did, because it’s completely pathetic that this dude actually told the student journalists their job wasn’t to do journalism. I mean, that’s got to be insulting even to the type of person who would go to Liberty.

                And, indeed, it was.

                1. Cathy L, it’s obvious that you have an imaginary standard of what ‘journalist’ is since historically they’re just mouthpieces for owners or the state. This is actually par for the course, rather than an outlier.

                  You are right that it’s against traditional standards (the very old traditional kind), they’re acting like leftists and Marxists. Go figure. It’s kind of funny that you just made that argument though, given your normal shtick.

              2. You’d think an editor might understand this. But apparently an assistant can’t.

        4. Journalists don’t typically believe that the people paying the bills get to make editorial decisions, though.

          Don’t tell NPR.

        5. Journalists don’t typically believe that the people paying the bills get to make editorial decisions, though.

          My children do not either. I have disabused them of that notion.

      2. Check out Liberty’s mission statement. It is at odds with Falwell’s heavy handed handling of the school newspaper.

        Yes, Jesus, I know that the number of organizations that actually strive to follow its mission statement are few and far between. Of course, legally, mission statements are almost always irrelevant.

        However, there is no reason why one should not take the measure of an institution by way of examining how closely it adheres to its state mission.

        I know that you remember what Barry Goldwater had to say about his father. The same applies to Jr.

        1. Sure. But at best you are left with the claim that Liberty has a bad school newspaper. That is pretty thin gruel. If these guys were denied the ability to make their own newspaper or in anyway prevented from expressing their views on campus, then that would be a problem. But, they just couldn’t print something in the school newspaper that the President of the University didn’t like. This is worth anyone not involved caring about why?

          1. but they were also warned not to make facebook postings which is separate independent of school. so the heavy handed censorship did go beyond the school

            1. And, yes, that is a concern. Schools should have zero right to make any comments about anything done not directly involving the school.

          2. Which is why we are publicly shaming the campus administration. Not everything is the end of the world. This is an academic freedom issue more than anything else.

            We are just causing enough of a ruckus that the board of directors will take an interest in the university management not drawing negative press. There’s no call for the government to get involved. There’s no call for protests. Just a “shame, shame, shame” in the right place so that people will see.

        2. Wherein Libertymike remains consistent and continues to pimp Goldwater

          1. John, fair enough from the why should I get worked up about it perspective.

            Just Say’n, yeah, I liked me some Goldwater.

            1. Goldwater is lame

              1. The best thing about Goldwater?

                He employed Karl Hess

    2. I believe Liberty is a private institution. It is not “publically funded” in a meaningful way, though its student body may be recipients of public funds.

  6. If you go to a school where religion or one side of politics is the most important thing, you pretty much deserve what happens.

    Formal schooling should be to find something you want to pursue or to get a lot of advanced background into a field.

    You should have to pay for both yourself, so it better be worth it for you.

  7. It is a private school. It is well known to be very conservative. If you don’t want the administration telling you what you can write in the school newspaper, don’t go to Liberty. This is not a case where it is a public school and is obligated to treat everyone the same regardless of politics or where it is a private one that pretends to be a place of free inquiry but in fact is nothing but. Whatever you think of Liberty, you can’t claim it isn’t up front about what it is. If these guys don’t like it, they should go to another school.

    1. Wherein John sounds exactly like Robby, but the irony escapes him

      1. No I don’t. Maybe Liberty sucks. I wouldn’t go there. But everyone knows what it is. So anyone who goes there is in no position to complain about the kind of place it is. Saying “hey you knew what kind of a place it is” is not the same as saying the place is a good place to be.

        This idiots are no different than someone going to BYU and then whining about not being able to drink. How that makes me sound like Robby is something known only to the voices in your head.

        1. You are the most dedicated partisan cheerleader I’ve ever seen

          1. What is partisan about saying that Liberty can run their college however they like? It only seems partisan to you because you apparently think that defending someone’s right to do something is the same as saying whatever they are doing is a good idea.

        2. Now do Evergreen State College

          1. It is publicly funded.

            Thanks for the softball.

            1. Almost all schools receive some sort of public funding. The critical difference is that Evergreen is publicly OWNED.

              1. Sure. Publicly owned and operated. And that is a huge difference.

            2. Yes. It is publicly funded. It also has a reputation for being on the liberal hippie end of the academic spectrum. Just like Liberty University has a reputation for being on the repressed uptight religious end of the academic spectrum. So students should know what they are getting into when they go to these types of colleges, right? Conservative students have no right to complain at Evergreen just like liberal students have no right to complain at Liberty.

              1. At Evergreen, ALL students are expected to complain.

              2. The difference is that publicly owned and operated schools can’t operate like that consistent with the law and the constitution. The fact that they advertise it doesn’t make it any less illegal. If they want to have ANTIFA U, then start a private college like the people who started Liberty did. I will defend their right to be fascist leftist and call anyone who goes there and complains a whiner just like I am calling the people at Liberty complaining here.

              3. Liberty censored a newspaper.

                Evergreen had lefty mobs with bats parading around campus and forcibly demanding whites leave.

                I don’t think they’re that comparable.

              4. So what do you want to do about it jeff? Wasn’t that your concern about complaints over twatbook censorship? Are you in favor of government coercion to fix this? Or have you now found a use for criticism absent that?

              5. And herein we see Jeff, having tossed John one low and outside, striving mightily to relocate the third base line somewhere between first and second base…

    2. If you don’t want the administration telling you what you can write in the school newspaper, don’t go to Liberty.

      As the student journalists themselves note, the way they run the newspaper is at odds with the way they teach you to practice journalism in their own classes. “I do think that currently the level of oversight we have does make it difficult to pursue the accurate journalism that we’re taught in classes.”

      1. Then Liberty has a bad student newspaper. Every college I know of is the same. These students should go to another college if they don’t like it.

        1. Every college you know of requires the president of the college to sign off on stories in the student paper?

          1. Liberty does. And that is their right. You don’t like it, but they do. What is your problem with it? Why can’t they run their college like that?

            1. My problem with it is that it makes a mockery of the concept of journalism. I never said they “can’t” run their college like that, but it does make them trash.

              1. Some people would say the same about social media companies masquerading as “open platforms”. Not you, of course. Wrong principals involved

                1. Lol, you mean the social media companies that censor “hate speech,” not to mention “pornography,” thinspo, suicide advocacy, and a host of other disfavored topics?

                  Did you think just because I didn’t go to the mat for some mf who literally prosecuted the Iraq war I was going to defend the content policies of major social media companies? Because I’m extremely not.

                  1. “who literally prosecuted the Iraq war”

                    That’s a nice dodge, woketarian

                    1. It’s not a dodge when it was 100% of the content of our actual argument about this.

                    2. Scott Horton seems to think that Peter Van Buren is an important voice, but Cathy, the preeminent troll of Julie Borowski, is here to tell you that Scott Horton is an apologist for a warmonger or something, because it’s the wrong principals involved.

                    3. I’ll certainly disagree that van Buren is an “important voice.” But it was you I said was being an apologist for a warmonger.


              2. My problem with it is that it makes a mockery of the concept of journalism.

                LOL, this is actual a verbatim example of how journalism actually works (on the editorial pages, at the very least, but you see it on the pages of every publication). These students just got a more useful object lesson than their classwork on how the game is played. The ‘concept of journalism’ is more accurately described as ‘the conceit of journalism’.

                1. No, it’s not. I understand that a bunch of you think that, but you’re wrong.

                  1. Funny, because my undergraduate degree in the subject says otherwise. As do all the actual journalists that I know as a result of it. So do the numerous history classes and books I’ve taken and read. Why, it’s almost as if you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              3. “… it makes a mockery of the concept of journalism.”

                That the publisher is the ultimate arbiter of what gets published in their publication is a mockery of journalism????

                LOL

                Only if your definition of ‘journalism’ is ‘whatever I think other people should be allowed to say.’

      2. Wherein Cathy takes John’s typical position and the irony escapes her

        1. You don’t understand either position. You can’t seem to grasp the difference between “they have a right to do this” and “this is what I would want”. It never occurs to you that defending someone’s right to do something is not the same as approving of whatever that is.

          1. You and Cathy’s positions on these matters always seem to hinge on the principal. Almost like you guys write for Reason or something

            1. My position on this is very simple, Liberty has a right to run their student newspaper as they wish and anyone who goes to Liberty can’t claim to be surprised that the administration is heavy handed about things. The university was set up by evangelicals to teach that point of view.

              Beyond that, even if they are wrong here, these guys can still freely express their opinions by other means. They just can’t do it via the newspaper. That is totally different than places like Berkley where having the wrong opinion will get you expelled or attacked by the mob. So anyone claiming this is like what is going on on liberal campuses is drawing a completely false equivalence.

              If actually apply principles and judging each case on its own is something that bothers you, well too bad.

              1. even if they are wrong here, these guys can still freely express their opinions by other means. They just can’t do it via the newspaper.

                Even if Alex Jones is wrong, he can still freely express his opinion by other means. He just can’t do it via Facebook.

                1. Even if Alex Jones is wrong, he can still freely express his opinion by other means. He just can’t do it via Facebook.

                  Sure. And if Facebook had not entered into what appears to be an illegal cartel of large tech companies to deplatform him, there wouldn’t be a problem. Are these guys not free to publish in other student newspapers or go to a different college?

                  Sometimes I think you just set me up with easy arguments so I can look good. I really need to be nicer to you.

                2. “Even if Alex Jones is wrong, he can still freely express his opinion by other means. He just can’t do it via Facebook.”

                  So weird that you never took Alex Jones’ side in the matter, chemjeff. Almost like you’re as principled as Cathy and John

              2. So when Liberty University deplatforms certain speakers, John will go to the mat to defend Liberty’s right to do so.

                But when Facebook deplatforms certain speakers, John will fret and moan about totalitarian leftist fascists destroying the First Amendment.

                1. So when Liberty University deplatforms certain speakers, John will go to the mat to defend Liberty’s right to do so.

                  They were de-platformed from a school owned and run newspaper. They have lots of other platforms to use.

                  But when Facebook deplatforms certain speakers, John will fret and moan about totalitarian leftist fascists destroying the First Amendment.

                  Facebook has a TOS that claims it is content neutral. It also is acting in coordination with other large tech companies to deprive people of the ability to be heard at all. These guys can’t publish an article in a student newspaper.

                  Again, I really think you write these things as an invitation for me to look good. Because you can’t actually be this stupid.

                2. It should be noted that Liberty had Bernie Sanders speak without incident.

                  The deplatforming stuff is really just one side.

                  Cute, that you’re switching positions now too, though

        2. John’s typical position definitely doesn’t involve reading the article enough to quote it.

          1. And your argument doesn’t involve actually making an argument or doing anything other than bitching.

      3. As the student journalists themselves note, the way they run the newspaper is at odds with the way they teach you to practice journalism in their own classes.

        So, well prepared to work at the NYT, Rolling Stone, Vox, CNN, and a half dozen other news outlets.

    3. Nope.

      Conservatives regularly have two major disagreements around suppression of speech at liberal schools. First, is the rights based one that I agree probably wouldn’t apply given Liberty’s private nature (“probably” merely because I am unclear on to what extent they receive any public money). But the second common complaint is that a school that suppresses speech, even controversial speech, is doing a disservice to its students by failing to expose them to challenging world views.

      And on that last point, I totally agree that Liberty is “doing it wrong”. The idea that Mr Faldwell is pulling anti-Trump articles is pretty sad. I thought conservatives were supposed to be the grownups with logic on their side. In conservative circles, there is broad disagreement over Trump and his policies, so the idea that Liberty would suppress articles on one side of that conservative debate is pretty bad.

      1. But the second common complaint is that a school that suppresses speech, even controversial speech, is doing a disservice to its students by failing to expose them to challenging world views.

        Sure. That is why I wouldn’t go to Liberty. But, the people who do, know what they are getting into. This is not Harvard or the University of Michigan. It is a tiny private school established by evangelicals specifically to teach one particular viewpoint. If you don’t like that viewpoint, don’t go there. But they have every right to enforce that viewpoint on those who choose to do so.

        1. I disagree that they know what they are getting into. Liberty doesn’t advertise itself as a place where conservatives cannot disagree with one another. And as mentioned, even in a school where Liberal ideas are not welcome, I would not expect a conservative university to suppress probably one of the most important conservative debates in the past 10 years. Trump’s policies and their impact on the conservative platform are hugely important to the cause, and to learn that the President is moving around behind the scenes to suppress ideas goes far beyond the scope of “You should expect this at a conservative institution”.

          1. Liberty doesn’t advertise itself as a place where conservatives cannot disagree with one another.

            And no one is saying these guys can’t disagree. They just can’t disagree the way they want in the school funded newspaper. They are free to have their opinion and express it otherwise.

            1. You keep arguing that Liberty is allowed to do this. Fine. I am arguing that Liberty doing this is bad for conservatives, and the conservative brand in general. It makes it difficult for conservatives to argue that they are the “Grown Ups” who aren’t afraid of confronting inconvenient facts, when one of the bastions of conservative schooling (regularly visited by politicians and referenced by thought leaders) is caught suppressing the free and open discussion of ideas.

              Here is a conservative institution that, when given the choice to engage in free and open debate, is found instead to be doing exactly what liberal institutions do. They may have the right to do so, but it doesn’t make it right. And conservatives should be disappointed about that.

              1. Since when is Liberty anything but a small evangelical school that speaks for no one but itself?


              2. I am arguing that Liberty doing this is bad for conservatives, and the conservative brand in general.

                You mean the NAZI’s, right? Because conservatives are known to be NAZI. This is bad for conservatives if you’re a conservative, I guess, but most of them will simply see it as a bad thing for the school not conservatism.


                Here is a conservative institution that, when given the choice to engage in free and open debate, is found instead to be doing exactly what liberal institutions do.

                And, unlike those institutions, is being criticized for it.


                They may have the right to do so, but it doesn’t make it right. And conservatives should be disappointed about that.

                This is probably true, but I suspect after being demonized for so long they’ve stopped caring. After all, there are only so many times you can be called a racist Nazi before you start to think there might not be that much to lose by fighting back with the same tactics, even if that means abandoning principle. This is because a principle doesn’t stop you from being killed in the street.

        2. Maybe it would be better, then, for them to teach only Religious Right propaganda writing in their journalism classes, so that student journalists would not experience that uncomfortable contradiction between what they are taught in class and what happens at the student newspaper.

          Or, maybe working under the intense scrutiny and censorship of the boss is giving them a more realistic experience of journalism than we would like to admit.

          1. Maybe it would be better, then, for them to teach only Religious Right propaganda writing in their journalism classes, so that student journalists would not experience that uncomfortable contradiction between what they are taught in class and what happens at the student newspaper.

            Maybe it would be. Since I don’t go to Liberty and it is not my money they are spending, that is up to them. I really don’t give a shit what they do. Maybe you should learn to stay the fuck out of other people’s business and leave them alone and that “freedom” means the freedom of people to do things you don’t like.

            1. What? Thinking about and commenting on other people’s behavior is hardly the same thing as interfering in their business. When people do things I don’t like, I will feel free to criticize them. They are welcome to ignore me.

              1. Who are you to say how Liberty should run its college? If you don’t like it, don’t go there or start your own college.

                1. Who are you to say I don’t have the right to hold and express an opinion on any fucking thing I want? My thinking and speaking does not restrain anyone else in any way.

            2. Freedom also means you’re never allowed to say you don’t like something someone else is doing. Because they’re free to do it. So you can’t complain.

              1. Is that you, Mr. Crowley?

              2. Freedom also means you’re never allowed to say you don’t like something someone else is doing.

                Sure. And saying that can make you a noisy idiot who won’t leave people alone. Why does a college you would never attend doing something you don’t like concern you enough to justify you condemning them? Moreover, why does your condemnation even mean anything?

                1. Why does a college you would never attend doing something you don’t like concern you enough to justify you defending them?

                  1. I am not defending them. I am defending their right to run their school as they like. That is something that does matter. How they use that freedom, not so much.

                2. Why does a newsmagazine you don’t like writing something you disagree with concern you enough to justify condemning them? Moreover, why does your condemnation even mean anything?

      2. I agree with both points and would just add that Falwell is doing his cause a grave disservice in censoring the editorial content of the student newspaper. It would be better for him to encourage a robust and free debate (within the standards of decorum of the student code of conduct) rather than be seen as so unsure of the strength of his arguments that he needs to suppress dissenting points of view. Also, once you go down the pathway of interfering with the editorial independence of the student newspaper, there’s going to be a lot of pressure on him to do it again and again (e.g. if he’s doing it for Trump, why not the next GOP president?) until it’s seen as nothing more than a mouthpiece for the school president. Far better to draw a bright line of editorial independence (within whatever code of conduct for student behavior is in effect) and let the chips fall where they may.

        1. Probably so. But since Fallwell founded the school, I doubt he really gives a shit and figures he can censor or not censor whatever he wants. And he is likely right about that. Jerry Fallwell started the school and is the President of it. Can these guys really act surprised that Fallwell doesn’t allow people to publish shit he doesn’t like in the school newspaper?

          1. Since he’s pretending to run a real college, yes, they can act surprised.

            1. No they can’t. Again, you don’t like Liberty. Good for you. Don’t go there. The idea that something might be none of your concern is just not something you can grasp is it.

            2. Oh my God, Cathy has never read anything about any college ever

      3. To say that Liberty;s actions are impeding the free exchange of ideas, and therefore counter to the ultimate goals of a university, strikes me as both reasonable and accurate.

        Calling it censorship is neither.

    1. “Disenfranchise, I say!” The good reverend proclaimed as he walked into the service station. “I’m sorry, can I help you?” A mechanic asked as he wiped grease from his calloused hands. “Yes, you grease monkey, I demand service now.” The mechanic peered over at the ascot wearing reverend. His body was frail from years of soy consumption that had robbed him of any masculine attributes. “Who are you calling a grease monkey?” The mechanic asked. “Why you, of course. A man whose ignorant vote cancels out my own informed choice.” “Are you the asshole who brought in the Prius?” The mechanic asked as he came in closer. “Why yes that is my socially responsible vehicle.” Answered the reverend. He could feel the mechanic’s breath on his neck as the mechanic came within inches of his face. The smell of grease and sweat made the reverend sneeze out a high pitched yelp. “Look here, grease monkey, your scent is offensive to my refined sensibilities.” “Get your piece of shit Prius and leave. I’m not fixing shit for you.” The reverend adjusted his ascot and responded: “It won’t drive grease monkey, that’s why..”. “Now!” Screamed the mechanic with a growl. The reverend was stunned by this outburst and instinctively stumbled back, only to shit himself.

      1. Shee-it. This ain’t ol’ Artie. Artie wouldn’t know an ascot from his asshole if some city person didn’t put it on him. He can’t tie.

        Can’t drive either, so I don’t know what all this ‘Prius’ crap is. He’s got too many fingers from all the inbreeding–hell, the mans his own niece on the murky side of the family–and god knows what his fa-sister has to say about all of your foolishness–he’s the one that reads all this to Artie–‘cos he’s the one who knows the ‘readin’.

        That ‘college’ Artie thinks he went to was a court mandated sexual harassment class that he got sentenced to after he kept gettin’ caught fuckin’ the pork chops down at the Piggly Wiggly.

        If Artie saw some ‘grease monkey’, he’d probably offer to suck his dick for a few bucks so he could get himself some more fentanyl

  8. the cute part is the Liberty student-journos haven’t been taught their tantrum is decades old and they lose every time

  9. Censorship or editorial control?

    Exactly who is the publisher?

  10. WOW. A person in a position of power using their power to push their ideas, and suppress those they don’t agree with??? NO WAY!

    Is this any different than what the NYT does? Or CNN? Or REASON? Reason sure seems unwilling to allow dissenting (AKA sane) articles to be published on their pet subjects, although I’m sure some contributors must hold such opinions.

    Also, let us keep this all in perspective. The leftists are out there on a massive and organized campaign of information suppression, actively trying to remove people not only from the media, but social media, get them fired from their jobs for their opinions, etc. Not to mention the direct analogs where leftist uni admins have done everything possible to fuck conservative student groups, papers, speakers, etc.

    So yeah, a single conservative guy wants to push his ideas at the school he founded… Not surprised. Maybe it’s not a good thing, but still not surprising. But compared to the left, the right is about 10,000,000% more in favor of free speech and against censorship in this country right now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.