Advocating the use of alcohol
Gary Lowell
Issue date: 11/5/09 Section: Opinion
This policy, as I have argued, is not directly related to lowering the amount of drinking or underage drinking on campus; at best it is only indirectly related, since it is not regulating drinking itself, but an act that is purported to affect drinking. I would also question whether there would be any indirect effects, though, since they seem so distant that to call them indirect effects seems to be stretching the meaning of the term effects.
As a result, even if the college's ban on postings promoting the use of alcohol does not violate the First Amendment, it does not seem like it is a policy that the college should have. The college, at least in my opinion, should only regulate speech activities when the regulations are absolutely necessary to further some compelling interest. Although the college could have a compelling interest in wanting to lower underage drinking, this policy is placing an undue burden on free speech; it is regulating speech for the purpose of reducing drinking or underage drinking, but it is not directly, or really indirectly, furthering that interest.
Consequently, I think the policy should be removed, and students should be able to more fully express their free speech rights by having postings that advocate the use of alcohol.
As a result, even if the college's ban on postings promoting the use of alcohol does not violate the First Amendment, it does not seem like it is a policy that the college should have. The college, at least in my opinion, should only regulate speech activities when the regulations are absolutely necessary to further some compelling interest. Although the college could have a compelling interest in wanting to lower underage drinking, this policy is placing an undue burden on free speech; it is regulating speech for the purpose of reducing drinking or underage drinking, but it is not directly, or really indirectly, furthering that interest.
Consequently, I think the policy should be removed, and students should be able to more fully express their free speech rights by having postings that advocate the use of alcohol.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 7
Frank M
posted 11/05/09 @ 12:40 PM EST
In response to Mr. Lowell's dissertation on the policy of Bridgewater State College to prohibit the use of postings which promote the consumption of alcohol, I have the following opinions and questions. (Continued…)
Matthew Dovell
posted 11/05/09 @ 1:35 PM EST
"Stop and think about his intent before you try and roast him for being anti-American, anti-constitution."
There is nothing within the context of what Mr. (Continued…)
Nick
posted 11/05/09 @ 4:42 PM EST
I think Frank is off point a bit with the "have you ever lost someone to a drunk driver" speech. This isn't about drunk driving. Drive around BSC at 1AM (when the bars close) and you'll find a vast majority of students walking back from (after having walked to) the bar. (Continued…)
Frank M
posted 11/05/09 @ 5:08 PM EST
Ok Nick, I appreciate your scolding of me for daring to bring reality into the conversation. Why don't we try to get me back on track, because I am interested in what the problem is here that prompted Mr. (Continued…)
Gary Lowell
posted 11/06/09 @ 1:25 PM EST
I did not say that the school should remove its tough policies on alcohol, I only said that this policy does not seem to be directly related to reducing drinking on campus. (Continued…)
fmac316
Frank M
posted 11/06/09 @ 5:02 PM EST
Let me again try to clear up MY words so that we can all understand each other, since it appears I have this all wrong and that I am making up fictitious and irrelevant scenarios to explain my position on why it is that the president of the college should stick to his policy of not allowing postings on campus which "advocate" the use of alcohol. (Continued…)
Post a Comment