Collegiate Times

Recently, a blog post on a Midwestern sports site that theorized that Phillies outfielder Raul Ibanez was using steroids as an explanation for his then-Major League-leading 22 home runs, pointing out that Ibanez, 37, has already hit more home runs this year than in any other year in the majors.

Several mainstream news outlets have criticized the blogger for being irresponsible and acting without proof or probable cause. If it is at all possible, put aside the stigma of performance-enhancing drugs surrounding baseball and whether Ibanez or anyone else have used steroids, and consider only the implications of the article itself. Regardless of your opinion of the ethics of the post, the incident provides a good case study of the responsibilities that come with the First Amendment.

Days after Midwest Sports Fans blogger Jerod Morris (username: JRod) posted his story, the Philadelphia Inquirer responded, bashing the eccentric Morris for implicating Ibanez and admonished Morris for his lack of ethics. In the following weeks, the two sides continued their feud, even appearing on ESPN's "Outside the Lines." While Morris maintains that he was attempting to vindicate Ibanez by offering up other reasons for his productive start, he wrote, "it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that 'other' performance enhancers could be part of the equation," as opposed to simply a change in home ballpark and other hitters in the lineup.

Despite the qualifications he put on his statement, Morris and other writers must take care that they are not capricious in their posts. Every time someone acts irresponsibly (and I am not saying Morris did or did not), they put their enjoyment of the First Amendment at stake, along with everyone who intends to use it as it was intended.

I am not scolding the writers here; I seek merely to warn them. Excepting only cases of clear libel or slander, I would always be in favor of free speech, were I granted the authority to do so, as would most judges. The fact is, however, there are judges, some wielding frightening amounts of power, who have forgotten the founding ideals of the nation because of their own visions of the future, often at conflict with logic and the rights of the minority opinion.

Consider the case of Buck v. Bell (1927), in which the Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law allowing for the sterilization of people deemed mentally ill - on an 8-1 vote. Without question, the law and decision are equally detestable, if not on the grounds of simple right and wrong, then certainly by appeal to the 14thAmendment's Due Process clause. But, in spite of this, the Court still upheld the law in overwhelming majority.  

While I disagree with the Court's opinion regarding the message itself, which furthers the precedent of limits on student expression, Frederick's - forgive me- cavalier invocation of free speech put other students' right to make legitimate claims at risk.

To revisit the freedom of the press guarantee, consider the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1987). A high school journalism class that intended to print, amongst other stories, articles on students' experiences with pregnancy and parents' divorces. Unfortunately, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding in favor of the school, 6-3.

Though the students were acting as legitimate journalists and displayed courage in pursuing a good story, the Court ruled that the principal had power over the newspaper, which was considered contingent of the school. It is for the sake of these youths and those like them, that people must be responsible in publications and speech.

More importantly, however, all Americans must continue to employ their rights. The students that put together the controversial newspaper should be an example for all students. Don't accept the Court's decision as the end-game; disagree, question, challenge. The fate of the nation lies in your hands.