free speech doesn't entitle you to print hate speech sarah. you cannot fall back on the first amendment as a crutch for you to continue your war on gays.

your voice is not my voice and the daily does not now (or ever) speak for me. i despise the things you've had to say and i look forward to the time when you are no longer able to use the pages of the daily to promote hatred and bigotry.

Sarah,

You are exactly right. The morons who think that they can define some political speech as unacceptable think in exactly the same way as those who'd like to define some relationships as unacceptable.

Wow. So in order to promote "free speech" you are required to print columns equating homosexuality with bestiality? How about the Holocaust deniers and flat-earth folks, are you going to give them equal time, too?
Maybe you should try a little less self-congratulatory self-righteousness, and a little more of that reflection on "the weight and meaning of free speech."

>>Free speech is for everyone. It’s not just for the majority,

Actually, the majority of the country is against gay marriage, as California and Florida have shown. So the minority is the vocal percentage represented here and on your campus. Bigotry is intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Which side is living up to that?

Hatred and bigotry are not a religion. The malevolence exhibited by this paper towards a single group of people cannot be justifiably compared to any religion anywhere.

For Sarah Jeglum to continue to print maligning, denigrating editorial and then to call that "free speech" is intellectually bankrupt and is a corruption of the first amendment that we see only in groups like the Ku Klux Klan. She has the choice not to print this garbage, but she elects to do it anyway because she is a hateful and mean spirited person who intends to use a subsidized paper to spread hateful and discriminatory propaganda about homosexuals. She is the David Duke of our time. The students on campus do not and will not tolerate our tuition money funding a paper that stands only to harass and demean the gay community.

hey look i can use any name old name to support myself anonymously. go sarah! you rock!

#10 T,
It's amazing how much you can infer without knowning a person. You are the David Duke of our time, seeing that you refuse empathy to those around you.

Your tuition money is chump change compared to alumni contributions, and I for one will not support an institution that shuts itself off from honest dialog.

Lit major: What context is that exactly?
I wasn't trying to support my quotes - they fit what is in my mind. I wasn't writing so that you can grade me. As far as snide - look at your own response. Also, you might re-read my post as you have fallen victim like the others - he was NOT equating gays with animals. You're way off now. Are you gay?

Saw the article in the times today. Your refusal to apologize is childish.

You're not being asked to apologize for printing an article with a conservative viewpoint, you're being asked to apologize for allowing a poorly researched, poorly written piece filled with irresponsible statements to make it past your desk and printing a disgusting graphic to accompany it that is patently ridiculous and offensive.

I just want to end by saying that the thing that troubled me the most in that piece was his statement that "homosexuality is a problem that needs to be dealt with". That statement is completely irresponsible. It sounds too close to similar statements that came out of Germany in the 30's and 40's about the Jewish problem.

To MJL:

1) What difference does it make if the posters here are gay or straight?
2) Mr. Fay did, in fact, compare gay marriage to marrying an animal, as well as marrying an inanimate object. His column suggested that if we allow gay marriage, it's only a matter of time before everything else is allowed as well.
3) You stated in comment #13 that Mr. Fay merely wrote about viewpoints in the public mind; he didn't just report on them, he wrote persuasively in favor of them. I submit that there's a significant difference.

Publication of a viewpoint in the student newspaper implies support, or at least tolerance, of that viewpoint. I am absolutely willing to tolerate those who oppose gay marriage, but I do not tolerate intellectually deceitful propaganda.

There's one point I don't think I've heard yet. The campus reaction to the article has no doubt had a very negative impact on The Daily, completely destroying its reputation and provoking students to take more substantive action (we'll see what happens). For the sake of this point I don't care where you land on any First Amendment issues. The campus reception and negative impacts should have been predicted. It should have been flat out obvious. Everyone on the editorial board should have read the article and said "wait, we publish this and the communications building is going up in flames tomorrow." Anyone with any sort of intuition about our student population should have seen the imminent shit show. For that reason alone, the Daily shouldn't have published the article. Its impact has been negative for everybody. This shit show is bad, and it was preventable.

I'm pretty sure that it is classified as hate speech to assume that Sarah "...is a hateful and mean spirited person who intends to use a subsidized paper to spread hateful and discriminatory propaganda about homosexuals." I wholly doubt that her main focus in running the article was to create a hotbed of homophobia and hate. The main point is that is was an opinion article, Fay's opinion. Not the Daily's, not Sarah Jeglum's. I do believe that most of the thing in John Fay's article were uncouth and poorly presented, but don't shoot the messenger.

What you choose to publish has nothing to do with free speech. You obviously don't print every position. Calling gay people equivalent to dogfu**ers is not acceptable.

On the other hand, this is free speech:

PROTEST AT THE HUB (WEST SIDE), TODAY AT 12:30PM

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/arch...

The Daily has failed to represent our campus. That you think your paper speaks for the students of UW is the height of delusion.

@27
You're missing the point. What did John's piece actually contribute to the debate over gay marriage besides uninformed opinions and enmity from the campus. Therefore they should not have run his piece. They STILL should have run an anti gay marriage piece because it is an issue that is a hot topic right now and debate is needed, but it should have been a well researched, reasoned, and intelligent piece. John's was none of those.

@31
You are the epitome of hate. Close your eyes to our love if you must. You'll never understand that this is not a choice either of us made. You can't put boundries on the heart. You are horribly bigoted people to even suggest that we are less than equal to any union you have. Regarding consent, you know not what you're talking about. This beautiful animal comes to me, not the other way around. Consent is in action not just words and by you discriminating against those without voice just shows the blackness of your heart.

This isn't about war, it's about love. Accepting our love in no way detracts from your union. Who are you to tell us who we should love? Who are you to tell us our love doesn't count but yours does? It's offensive, it's discriminatory, and it's unconsitutional. I am not a second class citizen for you to force your religious will on, Zeph. Your undeveloped brainstem will never stand the test of time.

Lots of work to do, yet. With 20% less money, this is going to be a slog.

Here here, JR! It's time for the world to accept us. We are not second class citizens to be discriminated against and shamed into hiding!

Don't forget about me too, Dog Lover.

To Robert:

Many of us who feel the paper was wrong in running this column feel that the editor showed poor judgment in choosing this column in particular to represent the anti-gay marriage argument. We're not looking for censorship of the opposing viewpoint, we just want to discuss this issue in a rational way. The arguments presented by Mr. Fay are intellectually dishonest; there can be no analogy between, for example, pedophilia and homosexuality. His column contributes nothing to this debate, but instead inspires irrational thinking about this issue. If the Daily wanted to present both sides of this argument, it would've done better to choose reasonable columns for each side, rather than illogical, bigoted ones.

By printing the column, The Daily made the statement that the views expressed are legitimate. Opposition to gay marriage is a legitimate position; equating homosexuality and pedophilia is not.

I might be speaking for myself here, but I'd like to see an apology from The Daily not for running a column expressing opposition to gay marriage, but for running one that does so in an intellectually deceitful way.

#43 If this is the real Sarah Jeglum speaking, as opposed to the #12 Sarah (who made a point I thought was right on, I applaud you. Many of the commentators here are sorely lacking any tolerance for persons opposed to their attempts to legitimize aberrant behavior. They have no problem bashing the belief system they think is behind the original article - Christian fundamentalist and conservative. That may be part of the pushback but it certainly is not 100%. Does anyone accusing Sarah of being narrow-minded or hateful have any idea what she really thinks or believes? There is no article that can be written that the people who are opposed to Prop 8 will not swear about. You could try leaving out the picture or creating some watered down pablum but the audience that opposes will only ever accept everyone crying at the "wedding".

An anti-gay marriage article could cover any number of points aside from attacking the morality of homosexuality and using useless arguments like "gay marriage is unconstitutional because it has no basis in constitutionality". Points could be made about the difference between civil unions and marriage, for one. Even the illogical assumption about legal gay marriage leading to changes to sex education in schools could have been discussed.

Instead the article was purely an attack on homosexuality itself. It was not a well-researched or informative article. It was merely a hateful opinion and was in no way a respectable piece of journalism.

The First Amendment only protects your right to speech in relation to GOVERNMENT ACTIONS. Meaning, that, with some exceptions like hate speech and sexual harassment, the government cannot censor what you say. Private parties can censor your speech all they want. Think about it for a second, can private employers sensor what you say at work? Of course they can! Can the Seattle Times decided to fire an Opinions Editor because it doesn't like the content he/she is providing? Of course it can! So we students, as private owners of the Daily, can censor it however we want. And we would be idiots if we didn't. A good paper chooses not to print opinion pieces on how the sky is green because the sky is obviously not green. And a good paper chooses not to print opinions on how racial minorities are inhuman because we've clearly moved past that bigoted foolishness. The Daily should be just as circumspect when deciding whether or not to print trashy opinions like the one they published by Jon Fay. And it should learn to apologize when it clearly screws up in a way that reflects poorly upon our paper, our school, and our students.

@43: I really hope that you are not the real Sarah Jaglum. Because if you are and you just wrote, "the pro-gay people in themselves are bigots and racists," then you are in for a long senior year.

I support gay rights, however I also support free speech, and when I am presented with an opposing viewpoint I see it as an opportunity to consider the conflict through fresh eyes and either sharpen or modify my own conceptions.

The problem I have with this issue, and the aspect that we really should focus on is the lack of common ground. Just because we don't agree with each other is no excuse to disregard the mutual respect that should be the basis of an intellectual forum; like the opinion section of a newspaper, or a University community.

Despite my position on the issue, I encourage the daily to print opinion pieces that are controversial, such as arguments against homosexual unions.

What appalls me and what I firmly discourage are articles that intentionally exploit their controversial positions and are divisive for the sake of being so.

There is no need to water down anyone's passion, but with that said here are *some examples* of creative alternatives to mud-slinging that might foster some sense of basic respect and dignity that this entire forum is desperately lacking:

If you are writing against gay marriage, don't ignore the scientific studies that link biology to sexual orientation. Attempt to discredit the studies if you must, but publishing an article that pretends the science does not exist is an injustice to this publication and our academic community.

If you're writing in support, it certainly wouldn't hurt to offer a bit of the same compassion that you are asking for. By this I mean some understanding for the process of socialization that has shaped people to be so adamantly against your position.

Again, acknowledging the other side of the fence does not empower it in any way. In fact it is the best expression of confidence in your argument and if you are tactful it is a pure expression of righteousness.

Please note, I am a supporter of homosexual unions and this is a component of my overall paradigm. What I’m trying to do here however is engage my opposition so that we can both more fully understand each other.

*Who else has creative ideas for finding middle ground, and fostering a spirit of respect and integrity?*

Thank you, Sarah, for clarifying. Obviously, there are some misguided people out there who are trying to pin more blame on you.

... Although I still stand by most of what I said, except with maybe not as much anger.

Again, no one answers the question, "what exactly is an appropriate anti-gay marriage argument?".

#45: Did you not just attack a different belief system? Your whole post is mute to me because you didn't answer the question, you just attacked...which is what you had a problem with yourself, right? Also, do you have problems with Christians? Would you rather me have a radical Muslim write the article so that they can talk about killing gays?

#46: You started to answer my question and then contradicted yourself by saying, "Even the illogical assumption about legal gay marriage leading to changes to sex education in schools could have been discussed.". Why would I use an "illogical assumption" in an argument to have you start bickering on that? Why don't you come up with a logical argument why unpopular (not wrong, as opinions can not be right or wrong as they are opinions) beliefs should not be discussed.

#50: Read the rest of the sentence. People who are closed minded only read/hear what they want. Are you closed minded? Also, was that a threat you just used?

In conclusion, people need to realize that other opinions exist that are all about what is right and wrong and not, "what must i do to be PC and pander to some minority group that I believe is doing something disgusting". And yes, some people believe being gay is morally disgusting. Are gay people going to spew hate speech on that person?

Sex education was a point of reference for most supporters of Prop 8 and was often cited as a reason to vote "yes". I named it as illogical because nowhere in the proposition was sex education even mentioned. However it still would have been a better piece of evidentiary support than some of Fay's remarks.

My point is not that the article was wrong based on my personal belief system. It was, there's no doubt, but Fay is entitled to his opinion, as is everyone. And no, hate speech should not be spewed at anyone who disagrees with me. But the fact of the matter is that the article was poorly written and had no basis in fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, sure, but if that opinion is supported by nothing but ridiculous statements about gays being "dealt with" and incorrect facts like race being biological and marriage being a Christian institution that's only been around for 2,000 years (because, well...the world didn't start with Jesus...just FYI), then it has no place in our school newspaper.

If homosexuality is an "emotional condition", so is heterosexuality. And just the DESIRE to get married, gay or straight, is an emotional state in and of itself. Saying that gay marriage should be illegal because gay people got upset when it was MADE illegal is the most nonsense argument I've ever heard. Implying that people being gay means all other social norms will be rejected and the world will go crazy is ridiculous. Saying that gay marriage is analogous to pedophilia and bestiality, two things that involve a lack of consent, is one of the most tired arguments I've heard on this issue.

Unpopular beliefs SHOULD be discussed. This particular piece, however, was shoddy journalism and truly offensive. There are ways to discuss this issue without resorting to hate speech, which was exactly what this was.

#58: Again you don't get the point. You again are trying to say that the opinion in itself is wrong. What about the opinion that global warming is a conspiracy or that aliens exist or that the drinking age should be lowered? Are those wrong? To be able to say something is right or wrong would need proof, and you have none.

hey sarah i just saw you on the teevee knows and not only was i taken back by your robust, manly jaw, but i was amused when you denied the gay-marriage-is-bestiality thing by saying "the article says gay marriage could lead to marriage between a man and an animal" which, by the way, is actually an affirmation of the thing you were trying to deny.

you are an evil, wretched, horrible person and i condemn kyle rapinan's crusade to preserve the paper. you do not deserve a right to publish anything. you don't deserve a right to your own voice. you need to go back to your aryan compound, find yourself some blue and blonde breeding stock and stay there forever.

Ill-advised, #62. One response like yours tends to overshadow any well-thought out argument, and proves their point that we're all just hypocrites. Think what you want but stooping to a level like that on a public forum is just bad manners.

Free speech is a lovely thing but you must remember that free speech means people can also respond to poorly researched and written pieces. It means people can point out the false-hoods written by a journalist (and I use that word journalist in its most liberal definition) and it means that people can question the judgement and ethics of a newspaper and its editor.
Free speech means great responsibility and careful reflection. Will what you or your paper say provoke genuine discussion? Or will it be a tawdry rag that promotes some questionable ideals and values?
I suspect that you the editor have chosen the cheap and fast route. Don't be so surprised that people aren't so fond of your choices.

A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Wow "Sarah" I love how you just put words into other people's mouths and twist them to fit your loosely gathered "arguments" ...

<i>#45: Did you not just attack a different belief system?</i>

Instead of asking me a question, could you, y'know, point out where SPECIFICALLY I attacked a different belief system? It's called using facts. You need to do that when you get into a university.

<i>Your whole post is mute to me because you didn't answer the question, you just attacked...which is what you had a problem with yourself, right?</i>

I like assuming stuff too. You're posting to this article, therefore you must be a closeted gay. Why do you hate yourself so much?

<i>Also, do you have problems with Christians?</i>

There you go, making assumptions and twisting things around to satisfy your own needs. Real question is do YOU have problems with Christians? Or with any religion that *isn't* Christian? I grew up Catholic, so the answer to your question is "no, I do not have problems with Christians."

<i>Would you rather me have a radical Muslim write the article so that they can talk about killing gays?</i>

Okay, you have to understand the sentences that I am writing ... that's actually going to take some effort on your part, and some semblance of intelligence to interpret what I'm saying to you. So when I say "someone who actually knew what the hell they were talking about?" I mean ... y'know. SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. So a radical Muslim who wants to kills gays? Probably doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about! Like you! But yes, compared to John Fay, I would've dearly preferred a radical (terrorist, because I know that's what you're thinkng!) Muslim, who fact-checked their article, to have written this editorial.

Okay, now! You have to read through my response very slowly so you don't get confused and start assuming things again! If you need some help, I hear the campus writing center is good at that sort of thing.

@71

You obviously know nothing about journalistic integrity or freedom of speech. If anything, this whole debacle has strengthened her resume in the journalism world ten-fold.

I am a sniper
Always hit the mark
Paid assassin
Working after dark
Looking through the night
Using infra-red
My target on you
Aimed at your head
$10,000 up front
$10,000 when I'm through
And I know just what to do
And ya know I'll do it too
Then I'm coming back for you
Back for you!
I do the getting rid of
Don't tell me why
Don't need to hear the truth
Don't need the lies
Now pay me quickly
And now we're through
It brings me great pleasure
To say my next job is you
Don't you know that
Killing is my business
And business is good

if i say "freedom of speech" ten thousand times, and click my heels together three times, that means i can say whatever the fuck i want to without consequence right? nobody's allowed to get mad at me right?

oh man, get ready world, because i gotta lotta hate to get out off my chest

jesus christ have any of you ever heard of freedom of speech? duh, it's in the constitution. trying read a copy and, like, get a clue.

Sean: Just because commenters decide not to post their names doesn't mean they're lonely losers. Many of us derive great humor and pleasure by trolling you serious types on the Daily. It keeps us smiling through the cold and wet winter months.

Now, to the point. If there's one right-wing-esque ideal I agree with it's the decentralization of power. The power of a society should lie with its people, not a small, often corrupt, elitist group. Thusly, I believe that after this year the Daily should mandate to change its editor each quarter. Until so, I will continue to do what I've done this year: not read a single published word.

@72

Oh that's right!

She already got her mug shot in the local section of the paper!

Wow! Things are looking up already!

Speaking as someone working at a real news outfit, I think Sarah will have to learn free speech is a cardinal rule to journalism. However, you have a role as a gatekeeper. A role, which you've failed. I take solace in the fact that you're a student. And very clearly, have much to learn.

"Wow, Liz. Do ... lesbian anger?"

LMFAO!!!!! You're a real keeper. I'm not a lesbian, not that there wouldn't be anything WRONG with that, but this supposed "anger" that you're facetiously pointing out is not for me, it's for society. I'm am so sick of people thinking it's okay to attack others because of who they are, and how they were born. THAT'S why I'm so upset over this whole debacle.

"How is the above statement not a shot at right wing Christians?"

No, dumbfuck, it's stating a fact. John Fay is a registered member of the Young Republicans, and his spouting off incorrect "biblical" verse in his article obviously shows that he is, oh, CHRISTIAN. I have no problems with ring-wing Christians who FACT-CHECK. How many times do I have to say this before it gets through your thick skull?

"That ... right wing Christian doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Very poor use of paragraph structure. I can meet you in the writing center at any time for private lessons."

Is that all you do all day? Sit there, listening to people and twisting their words around to fit your poor arguments? John Fay, regardless of whether or not he's a ring-wing Christian, did not know what he was talking about. To EXPLICATE, I mean, if a Jewish student had written that article spouting off bullshit nonsense with out fact-based evidence, I wouldn've responded EXACTLY the same way! And please don't try to seem more intelligent by recycling my comebacks. I know you're a little slow and it takes you a while to think up rebuttals, but, really, if you can't come up with anything original, don't say anything at all.

"In post #70 ... when you answer my original question. Please list them in order, and be careful that they are well thought out, or people - like yourself - will be all over you."

Except, wait, I did answer your questions! OMG! Like I said, you have to read pretty slowly to understand what I'm trying to get at.

"And finally, you go on the attack again. ... absolutely no way that they are smarter than me." Lastly, you attack me for assuming, however didn't your sentence ... "

I see that ... the whole point of that post went completely over your head. I was attempting to show you what it feels like to have someone assume random ass facts about you without really analyzing the statements ... which is what you've been doing for this entire conversation. And, no, stop putting words into my mouth ... I was not saying that radical Muslims, or Muslims in general knew less than me. If anything you were implying that if a radical Muslim had written that article instead of John Fay, that the article would've somehow been inherently wrong.

"Answer my question,... Maybe we can finally talk about how disgusting gay people are."

And there you have it! Discussion over. Man, please tell me you're a part of the Young Republicans and that you debate for them, because you guys get your asses handed to you every time ...

Sarah, Never fear in doing the right thing. Your commentary was wise. Thank you for giving homosexuals a chance to spotlight their own malicious hatred toward anyone that questions their debased lifestyle. Many of the responses above show that homosexuals only believe in the freedom of their speech.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do the but give approval to those who practice them. Romans 1:28-32
I don't know if you are a Christian or not Sarah but whenever you stand for the truth and fairness it's these kind of people that will want to shut you up. Be brave.

Oh, Jeffrey B. I can infer from your post that nothing I say will make any sort of difference, but I have to respond to your horrifyingly narrow-minded comments.

1) Separation of church and state. Look it up. The opinion piece was not supposed to be about gay people in general, it was supposed to be about gay marriage, and your religious views have absolutely no importance here. Guess what? Not everything is about God.

2) You are a hypocrite. "Malicious hatred"? And what do you call the way YOU feel about homosexuals? All those things you wrote---is that not malicious hatred?

3) "They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless." I'm sorry...really? REALLY? I can't even...okay. So every gay person is a gossip and disobeys their parents? Please, do tell us all how you know this. I'm sitting on the edge of my seat.

I love that people just pass right over any logical reasons for why this article should not have been printed. It's not about Fay's opinion, it's not about him disagreeing with gay marriage or even about his clear homophobia. The article was inappropriate for a college publication, it was full of incorrect facts, and it was offensive. That's it. No ranting and raving about how being gay is a sin against a god not everyone believes in changes that.

Free speech is the most important right we have as Americans, yes. But would Jeglum have printed an article with this amount of hatred geared towards African Americans? Asians? Women? People from the Mid-West? People can say whatever they want but it doesn't always belong in the newspaper. There should be oversight, and this was a clear mistake on the part of the editor.

If it means that she is a bigot because she allowed this one opinion piece, which ran directly next to an opinion piece supporting gay marriage, what does it mean that she as editor-in-chief has published several columns, news stories and feature stories that support and/or celebrate homosexuality and gay marriage?

way to go, you stupid cunt. way to make you, your newspaper and your school look and sound like a bunch of redneck idiots. you look much like a sheep yourself, but even i wouldn't touch you. go back to your trailer park you piece of white trash!

Go to hell Sarah.
Somehow you managed to turn The Daily into an even crappier paper than it already was.
My dog could be a better editor.

Kudo’s Sarah - you are doing the job you were hired to do.

I, along with many others I know, appreciate you standing by the ‘freedom of speech’ code. Gays are all about wanting us along with society and our children to be ‘tolerant’ with their ‘choice’, yet what if we don’t want to. What if we disagree, is that being ‘intolerant’ or is that ‘freedom of speech’. They can dish it out, but can’t take it in the end……(no pun intentioned). We can be tolerant without agreeing, unless they cross the line and try to influence our social ethics and how our children view their choices. Once they cross the line, then someone has to take a stand and say ‘no’. Being Gay is their choice, but it does not have to be the majority and will probably never be the majority. Thank you.

@Lynette

"I, along with many others I know, appreciate you standing by the ‘freedom of speech’ code."
The Daily isn't "standing behind" free speech; they're hiding behind free speech provisions and they're cowards.

"Gays are all about wanting us along with society and our children to be ‘tolerant’ with their ‘choice’, yet what if we don’t want to. What if we disagree, is that being ‘intolerant’ or is that ‘freedom of speech’."

What a fascinating mishmash of craziness! Do you actually know any GLBT people? Are you aware that they have children too?

Here's a clue:
Decent people aren't tolerant of the KKK or white supremacists.
Decent people aren't tolerant of Holocaust deniers.
Decent people don't tolerate blatant misogynists.
Decent people don't tolerate bigots.

You are a bigot.

You may think that being gay is a choice, and it is your choice to remain so completely ignorant. The rest of us are under no obligation to indulge your ignorance.