Editor,
If I were a part of the staff at the Daily Lobo, I would reconsider the Facebook requirement and return to a system of anonymity.
First, let me say that I am an UNM alumnus and very proud of it. I have had the hobby of participating in online discussions for well over the time that I attended UNM and still enjoy visiting its forums, until the switch to Facebook.
I have no fear of retaliation for my ideas, but I can understand why others would want to remain anonymous. In many cases it is for fear of bullying and intimidation. It’s actually the lack of anonymity that causes bullying. It’s the consistent exposure and lack of privacy on Facebook that drive teenagers to suicide, and it’s no coincidence that Facebook users fear this in a public university forum.
I honestly respect Jason Darensburg’s opinion, and willingness to put it out there. I do, however, get the feeling that Jason isn’t being forthcoming about his love of the Facebook requirement. I don’t think that this is about “cyberbullying” nor is it about “hate-speech” at all. It’s really about not wanting your ideas challenged; it’s about silencing your opposition. And this is a very dangerous tyrannical path to take.
A university campus, and the beautiful and diverse range of ideas that come with it, are the pinnacle to free speech. It is important amongst lively and thinking adults to express their ideas freely and without any worry of retribution.
The Daily Lobo has a responsibility to foster an environment that allows the most diverse range of ideas possible, even if it goes contrary to what the editors believe. If there really is someone that is “bullying” they have options to block them from the site.
On the other hand, if Jason was really worried about “bullying” he wouldn’t be writing columns, since he has the choice to write them anonymously. I find it amusing that Jason is making these sorts of parallels to himself. I’ve been challenging to him, but not mean. A challenge is not hate speech.
Indeed, debates can be tough, emotional and serious, but to call them “hate speech” is absurd. It’s just a shallow way to hide the true intention of silence. Opinions should be expressed, and more importantly, challenged — this is the fundamental purpose of a college newspaper. We should be growing the forums, bringing in more points of view, not less.
College campuses have become bastions for bullying conservatives. The real bullying is when people know all about you from Facebook and can attack you personally. It’s happened to me, but I am OK with the consequences. With Facebook, you no longer have the ability to freely express your ideas, because you could be called out on it by your liberal fellow students and professors.
Most professors have left-leaning points of view and students do not want to compromise a grade for their beliefs. Society has become extremely intolerant of those that profess right-leaning ideas because of their consistency and appeal, such as libertarian ideas. Now the Daily Lobo has joined the club in this fight to silence.
Maybe Jason would prefer to know who these people are for more personal attacks, and search their profiles. Take it from Jason himself: “The cowards who were so free with their insults in the past have been forced to shut the hell up or risk exposure to the greater UNM community for what they are…”
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Does this sound like he cares about bullying and insulting? Of course not. It’s a sad and shallow strategy by those who prefer only one point of view, similar to the dictates of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Kim Jong-Un. And the propagandists will hide behind the emotionalized claims that this Facebook attempt is to combat “bullying” and “hate speech.”
What a sad use of these terms to justify censorship.
Finally, the United States has a long history with the importance of free speech, and it goes hand-in-hand with the ability to be anonymous. Mark Twain, as Samuel Langhorne, coincidentally wrote to criticize common ignorance. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote anonymously in The Federalist Papers, some of the most important pieces of establishing America. And even today, the famous magazine The Economist writes with anonymity so the writers can be free to express any ideas, without fear of retribution.
As long as speech is responsibly used, unlike some of the baboons that visit the commentary, it is important to be able to retain anonymity. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections U.S. 334 (1995) Justice Stevens would write for the majority: “…the right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.”
He is absolutely right. And the Daily Lobo should restore anonymous forums for business purposes, for protection of students, and most of all, to retain the right to free speech.
Damian Erasmus
UNM alumnus
