2004 Libertarian Party of Indiana gubernatorial candidate Kenn Gividen is getting a lot of media attention this week.He has questioned the wisdom of publishing an article about oral sex in the Columbus North High School student newspaper. Now before shouting hollow claims of "What about free speech?" - which Democrat bloggers are hollering - consider closely what Kenn is saying. His talking points are:
1. Columbus North High School and its newspaper has the right to publish whatever they want, but having the right to do it doesn't make it right to do it.
2 - This is evidence that parents need to control the education of their children, not the government.
Of course, some of this is lost upon the media and may not be reflected in their articles or newscasts.
Here's a link to the Associated Press article: "School newspaper's report on oral sex draws complaints".
A form of this article has been in the Columbus Republic, Chicago Sun-Times and Indianapolis Star newspapers.
Kenn has been interviewed by WISH TV 8 in Indianapolis and FOX 59 in Indianapolis. Both stations broadcast parts of the interviews.
Also, I know that a major national television news show is trying to reach Kenn for an interview about this.
Leo Morris of the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel, does get what Kenn is doing. He has a supportive entry on his blog Opening Arguments titled "The dirt on sex". Morris explains the difference between libertarian and libertine. Being a Libertarian is not the same as being a libertine.
Some Libertarians are going to find that there was no problem with Columbus North High School publishing the article. Other Libertarians are going to find that publishing the Columbus North High School article was a poor judgment call. But all will agree that the growing trend for government to make decisions in the place of parents is very, very bad policy. They will also agree that free speech is about Kenn questioning the wisdom of Columbus North High School publishing the article. Libertarians wish more people would question government operations such as Columbus North High School.
1 comment:
Let's think clearly here. This was a student publication, not a government publication. The school did not publish this article. Is Mr. Gividen stating that the government (the school officials) should have stopped the student's right to publish this article? My understanding is that the whole idea was to tell students to abstain from this practice.
Mr. Gividen wants to equate this with pornography. If students are freely engaging in this unsafe practice they should know the dangers. If we as adults want to "hide our heads in the sand" and then deny the student's right to publish their article telling their peers to abstain from this practice, then we are not doing our job as parents and educators.
Education is about the exchange of ideas. Education is not just to give facts in the 3 R's but to get students to think and discuss issues. Yes, we parents should be discussing this with our children. But let's be realistic. How many of you talk to your children about "oral sex". I know that I didn't. I had my talk with my son but I did not get into those details. I don't believe that my wife discussed this with our daughter.
I applaud this student. My understanding is that this student worked with the teachers to make sure that the correct message got out through the article. We shoud be encouraging this type of journalism instead of calling such a discussion "pornography". Calling it pornography is only creating sensationalism.
Post a Comment