Censorship of the Brown Daily Herald
The Issue
In the past, there have been attempts by the Office of Student Life (OSL)
and the Undergraduate Council of Students (UCS) to link the Brown Daily
Herald's funding and on-campus distribution rights to the content of its
articles.
In several instances, UCS members have attempted
to change the BDH's contract so that it could be punished with fines for
printing articles the UCS disapproved of, and for not covering issues
UCS wanted to see printed. In 1999, the BDH responded by ending its
contract and becoming financially independent from UCS. However, there is
still a risk that future UCS members will attempt to exercise leverage over the
BDH's editorial content -- for instance, by threatening to restrict the BDH's
ability to distribute copies of the paper on campus.
In addition, certain University administrators have attempted to censor and
punish the BDH for printing exposes and "whistleblowing" articles
on the University Disciplinary Council (UDC).
In one particularly flagrant example, deans from OSL and the Office of Campus Life
allegedly threatened to sue the BDH for breaching the University's confidentiality
in the spring of 2000, when the BDH's editors announced their intention to publish
University documents relating to the controversial Ebony Thompson UDC case.
Our Stance
The right to a free press is one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed under the first amendment.
If UCS members or University administrators attempt to exercise political and editorial authority
over Brown's only daily newspaper, they are overstepping their authority and directly
infringing upon the first amendment rights of not only
the Brown Daily Herald editorial staff but also upon the countless outside writers and artsts who submit letters,
opinions columns and cartoons to the Herald every day.
Furthermore, we deplore efforts by University administrators to prevent the
BDH from publishing complete and accurate reports on University disciplinary
proceedings, malfeasance within the University administration, and other
issues that concern the Brown community.
The BDH has the right to publish whatever it
chooses on any issue of public concern, without fear of punishment,
unless University officials can prove that the reporters and editors
acted with "actual malice" -- that is, with knowledge that their
statements were false, or that they acted with a reckless disregard for
whether it was false or not (New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 US 254).
And just as the U.S. government has no right to restrain newspapers
from publishing secret government documents
(see New York Times v. U.S., 403 US 713, the "Pentagon
Papers" case), the University has no right to restrain the BDH from
publishing confidential information about University operations, personnel,
and other affairs.
