The case is Murakowski v. University of Delaware and the complaint (filed 07/30/2007)can be found here. Murakowski was a student at UD who operated a "humor blog" that handled some racy subjects and relied upon a very specific type of off-color humor. He joked about killing people, degrading women, and more.
In the wake of the Va. Tech shootings, the University of Delaware decided it was time to take action and Suspended the plaintiff. Murakowski is suing in District Court for re-instatement.
This case is just getting started, but it will be an interesting test case for freedom of speech. Parody has often been a protected form of speech, however we are entering into an area in this case which puts a lot of pressure on the administration to make highly individualized determinations about what is parody, and what is a sign of potential danger.
Is it reasonable for the court to ask College Administrators to be the gate-keeper for what is humorous and what is a threat? Is it reasonable for the courts to be the body responsible for setting these standards? How much freedom is too much? How graphic and disturbing can "tongue-in-cheek" humor be before it is indistinct from hate-speech and fodder for ignorant masses of hateful people? I don't envy the trial judge in this matter.
Lets get some feedback here - your comments are welcome and encouraged!
A link to the full story can be found here.
Stay Tuned...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment