See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Print No Evil

Just how offensive does something have to be before it gets censored? How many people have to be offended and just how hard do the tears have to flow before apologies are issued and statements get retracted? Are there some ideas, opinions and words that, for all intents and purposes, are simply off-limits? Mr. Johnny Cash, the man in black himself, once claimed to walk the line, but just where is the line? Is it possible to walk it without completely losing one's balance?College is often touted as the time to shake things up, shock others and explore taboos. University newspapers seem like the perfect place to do just that: publications run by the students, for the students. Ergo, the opinions section seems like the ideal platform for the airing of an individual's opinion, shaking and shocking though it may be. However, not all students share the same view, and what is acceptable to one can be offensive to another. Essentially, can an opinion ever be wrong?

The Strand, like every newspaper, occasionally runs into problems concerning what gets published. On any given day dozens of publications make it to newsstands that contain material which is potentially offensive. That model in the Toronto Star's Fashion section is promoting an impossible ideal of beauty, the expensive cars featured in the Wheels section promote gas consumption and environmental decay, the Business section reinforces class divisions. the ammunition is there and the trigger-finger of sensitivity is at the ready. Oops, gun imagery, there's a petition waiting to happen.

What makes this issue of censorship so effing touchy are the problems inherent in deciding when it's O.K. to appear biased and when it isn't. Obviously, opinion articles are biased and based solely on the views of an individual, and therefore should be treated with a certain amount of leeway. But when people feel antagonized by an opinion, should it ever make it to the public? Should the platform for student voices be roped-off? Is it fair to try and shut someone up because of what they have to say?

One solution would be to print letters of rebuttal in response to every piece that offends, thus giving the pissed-off a chance to do some hair-pulling of their own. The Strand did this last year when someone felt the need to rant and rave about Ugg boots (I swear; why would I even make this stuff up?) The jury's out on whether or not the newsprint catfight of 2004 ever got past the campus media stage and into the mud wrestling ring, but it's an example of what can happen when the rope is lifted. One problem with this is that it runs the risk of turning what should be a space for all student voices, antagonized or otherwise, into a private bitching forum for a select few.

Over the years, the Strand has run its share of offensive material; from full-page pictures of Stalin, to editorials slagging the women in Dove's "Campaign For Real Beauty", to the Strand Guide To Prison Tattoos, 2004-2005 alone was ripe with explosive content. What's interesting is how few people complained - either we're all too jaded to be shocked by anything, or else no one reads the Strand. When the latter is viewed as the explanation for the silence of the masses, it's somewhat of a relief when a complaint is submitted. Thank God, someone actually read enough of the paper to be offended by it, sighs a staff who often feel like their audience doesn't extend farther than their parents and roommates. How can a newspaper be expected to speak for an audience when it's not even sure that it has one?

We're so conditioned by political correctness and the desire to let love rule that certain words become loaded to the point where they can no longer be used. When certain words and images are used, even if only to emphasize a point, some people are bound to sit up and take notice in a decidedly negative way. Why do writers choose to use potentially insulting images? Is it because those themes are best suited to the story, or is it an attempt to grab a public with an MTV attention span? Lovesick kindergarden kids get it: if you want someone to notice you, be mean to them. But whereas bratty kids get time-outs, outspoken students often get silenced.

To everyone who ever has been, is now, or will be offended by what the Strand sends to the publishers: we're sorry. But we're editors, not Thought Police, and it's probably going to keep right on coming. Thanks for reading.