Friday, March 19, 2004
These days, in the era of the Patriot Act, post-Super Bowl shock-jock backlash and 10-second delays, it seems the First Amendment has taken a back seat to censorship.
In the Town of Southampton, for instance, veteran investigative journalist Pat Lynch was recently escorted out of the town's animal shelter, where she had been a volunteer, because the town felt the 65-year-old was "disruptive."
Lynch, who disagrees with the town's new policy on animal euthanasia and has criticized the way the shelter is run, was also told she would not be provided any information for "Shelter Stories," a column she writes for the Southampton Press that features animals up for adoption, or for a radio spot called "Pet of the Week" on WLNG 92.1 FM.
In a letter to Lynch, Southampton's chief fire marshal, Cheryl Kraft, said Lynch couldn't be allowed in the shelter because of "conflicts of opinion that would be detrimental to the overall running of the shelter are sure to abound. We cannot allow a disruptive atmosphere to exist. Such an atmosphere is not conducive to promoting adoptions, a goal we both share."
Ironically, Lynch's efforts in print and on radio have led to at least 30 adoptions since June. Now, Lynch is not only prohibited from getting the word out about pets in the shelter; she's also not privy to information available to anyone walking off the street interested in adopting a pet. This is a clear violation of Freedom of Information laws, and the town needs to change its stance immediately.
You don't want her as a volunteer? Fine. But "conflicts of opinion" are not justification for censorship. In fact, differences often lead to stronger governments, stronger businesses and stronger individuals through the introduction of diverse ideas.
Knee-jerk reactions like these are becoming more common, even on a collegiate level.
School officials at the Brooklyn campus of Long Island University, which administers the George Polk Awards in Journalism, went so far as to change the locks on the student paper office, suspend the editor for three weeks and remove a faculty adviser after the paper ran a story blaming the student body president's resignation on his bad grades. The paper listed the student's grades, which the school said was an invasion of privacy.
Whether or not you disagree, you have to ask yourself: Do you believe in the principles of the First Amendment, or is knee-jerk censorship better?
Thanks, but we'll stick with the First Amendment.
