Laws & Ethics
The First Amendment is the very basis of a Journalist's rights and abilities, but it also opens pathways. Pathways of discussion and discourse over subjects that would otherwise be closed. Over my time as Editor-In-Chief this year, I have dealt with several situations where I had to write or frame my opinions pieces in a way that I wanted them to be stated, while still opening channels for discussion and not be considered slanderous.
In Response to Overturning Roe V. Wade
Abortion is a controversial and very personal topic. But, when I heard about the overturning of national abortion rights this summer, I knew that I wanted to write something. But not something blasting those who oppose abortion, but rather an argumentative piece that is backed by facts from reputable sources that could act as a gateway for conversation. I received two comments on this piece which accomplished the path for discussion that I wanted to create originally. While I may not agree with everyone's opinions and not everyone will agree with what I write, I will always respect other people's ideals, since everyone has a right to free speech under the 1st Amendment.
Commenting Policy
Yet, there was also a situation this year where my managers and I had to make a difficult decision regarding free speech. We received a hateful, transphobic comment on a piece that was released covering how Grandview's LGBTQ+ community reacted to the Club Q Shooting. I do not have a photo of this comment due to it being placed in our trash and automatically deleted 30 days after, but it was filled with false accusations towards the trans and LGTBQ+ community.
We were faced with a 2-sided situation regarding this comment. On one side, we did not want to silence this person from expressing their opinion about the subject, even if it was hateful. But on the other hand, the comment did contain very hateful and accusatory language with completely unfounded claims with zero evidence to support them. So, we turned to our comment policy.
After discussing the comment in the eyes of our comment policy, we determined not to post it under the obscene language that was included within it and how it degraded others on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. We also believed that this comment did not open up the doors for discussion. We also viewed this through the idea that as a school publication, The Chronicle is part of a learning environment, and our comments and stories should lead to further discovery and discussion, and not simply made broad, hateful statements about a group of individuals. This led us to the final decision to not post this comment.