To the Editor:
It would do the authors of "The Zetemouth" -- and those who would rally behind them under the banner of freedom of speech and the press -- well to rethink their belief that they had the right to publish their controversial and juvenile newsletter. Contrary to popular belief on this campus, the First Amendment does not give Americans the right to say what they want, how they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. In other words, the First Amendment, while a cornerstone of our democracy, is not absolute.
The First Amendment protects stupidity. It protects backward, wretched and even imbecilic points of view similar to those expressed in the Zeta Psi fraternity's newsletter. If Americans decide they want to keep on thinking that women are nothing more than their sex organs, the Supreme Court isn't going to try to stop them.
The First Amendment does not, however, protect an organization or individual's right to spread blatantly false and morally repugnant filth about whomever it chooses, no matter whether it is dressed up in either the guise of fact or humor. That is libel. That is slander. That is illegal.
There has been some attempted defense for the publication of the newsletter based on the grounds that it is nothing different than what you might find in your local convenience store magazine rack. It's been compared to tabloids and pornography, both of which, these people correctly assert, have been protected by the courts.
When the National Enquirer spread the dirty, private truth about celebrities, and those celebrities filed suit, the court sided with the publication. However, when the celebrities who were being slandered in the National Enquirer filed suit, the court sided with the celebrities and ordered the publication pay a hefty sum in damages.
Ultimately, though, "The Zetemouth" is very different than the National Enquirer in one terribly important and crucial sense: "The Zetemouth" is not slandering celebrities -- it is disrespecting many of the same women who came to the fraternity weekend after weekend and had what they mistakenly assumed were friendly and trusting relationships with the brothers. It's a betrayal of that trust and a devaluation of their humanity, not a First Amendment rights issue.
More importantly, the brothers of Zeta Psi and their defenders -- however well meaning -- should ask themselves a very basic and human question: How would they feel if their sisters or -- someday -- their daughters, were treated in the same callous and shameful manner as the women in question?
Their answer would have nothing to do with the First Amendment.
