Racist and One-sided attack on free speech [Archive]

Buffalo Souljah

1st July 2010, 22:09

Here (http://www.whnt.com/news/whnt-uahuntsville-college-safety-concerns,0,2371318.story) is a report from the local CBS affiliate which centers on a "violent" student at the local university and addreses the "failure" of the university to "deal with" the problem of violence. THe story is extremely biased and one-sided, and fails to take into account the opinions and views of the offended party. I feel that, moreover, this could lead to irreperable harm to the reputqation of the individual in question, and furthermore a general undermining of the authority of traditional institutions in the community, namely the local university, whose chief of police, as stated in the interview, considers the case "resolved" through university policy. This report is slanderoud and injurious not only to the personal character and reputation of individuals, but also institutions that comrpise the bedrock of civil society: our universities. As such, it is an attack not only on freedom of speech and expression, but also, as mentioned, a threat to the authority of such traditional institutions. THis sort of vigilantism on the part of the media must be stopped before we have further erosion of privacy and rule of law in this country. A user commented that this, in effect, "crucifies [the involved part] in the court of public opinion," and I don't thionk that's far from the truth.

Buffalo Souljah

1st July 2010, 22:11

A letter written to the Alabama ACLU on behalf of the offended party (footnotes were excluded):

07/01/10
Dear ma'am or sir,

I am contacting you today because I feel, in some form or another, my civil rights have been violated. As the end result of a process of which I was unaware of the transgression of, both my own personal character, as well as the integrity of an institution of higher education have been compromised. I feel that it is small erosions of our basic civil rights as these (e.g., a right to diversity of opinion, among others) that undermine the basic functions of our civil society.

The incident in reference to relates to a news story that was broadcast on the local CBS affiliate (WHNT-TV) during the ten o'clock news on Wednesday, June 30, 2010. The segment was part of a series on school safety, focusing on the reaction by school administrators, as well as university police to the school shooting that occurred on The UAH campus on February 12, 2010 in the Shelby Center on campus. According to the report, the piece was intended to investigate the efficacy of police response to “potentially dangerous student[s]”. The report focused on a particular student, who apparently had a “violent history” and who had been accused of being disruptive in class and making threatening comments1. The story asked whether the university police had taken appropriate action to defend the campus against such “violent” students. Several individuals were interviewed, among them the university police chief and a fellow student, who wished to remain anonymous. These segments accompanied quoted bits of several internal faculty correspondences which suggested that the student in question is “concern” faculty, and may be a “threat”. Existing cases in other counties are mentioned2, and “leaked” police reports are quoted. The implication of these documents is that the student is generally a “violent” person.

The story was unprovoked, and refers primarily to events transpiring earlier this year3, and even in previous years (which as the university police chief states in the interview featured in the piece, have been dealt with “according to university policy”). Furthermore, the scope of this piece is ostensibly a stylized “witch hunt”, with inflammatory investigative reporting that portrays questionable bias against the offended party. Many facts are taken out of context, and the general “gist” of the report is that of presumed guilt. There is a lack of journalistic integrity, which in other circles would be considered “shameful reporting,” but in Huntsville is apparently considered accepted fair for the ten o'clock nightly news.

It is not known how the station got access to internal faculty emails or police reports from the various parties involved, but it is certain they (the correspondences and police reports) are used to incriminate the aforementioned individual, “essentially crucifying [him] in the court of public opinion.4”

This incident says as much about the erosion of civil liberties of individuals accused of committing a crime as it does about the state of our criminal and justice system, which has been criticized for generally promoting a view of “presumption of guilt” above the traditional (and ideal) interpretation of the right to a fair trial. If stories like this are allowed to remain uncontested and continue to appear, this situation dramatically undermines the impartiality of criminal investigations and rule by law, not to mention causing potentially untold injury to the reputation and character of individuals and institutions in the community. What is to stop a jury from associating guilt with the injured party and thereby, carrying this “crucifixion in the court of public opinion” into the court of law, thereby incriminating a potentially innocent citizen? What is to stop the abuse and invasion of privacy from spreading and claiming victims in other places? This is not a minor incident, restricted to the particularities of this specific case, but presents a larger problem: [I]to what extent is the press free and able to twist and corroborate “stories” for the sake of publicity and spectacle, without regard to journalistic integrity and civil decency or the public good? If this vigilantism is allowed to remain undaunted, we can only expect further erosion of rights, perhaps to the point of curtailing free expression of thoughts and ideas, of which the free exchange is a central component of any functioning democratic civil society.

Please do not hesitate to shed light on this situation. Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Jerome Warren