Newspaper distributors say their intent is to be funny

Newspaper distributors say their intent is to be funny
By MICHELLE MacEACHERN - Staff Writer

Three university police cars were parked on the Chico State University grounds just north of the Meriam Library on Friday afternoon, watching three guys hand out newspapers.

Sgt. Eric Reichel said he'd heard the group handing out The Koala were from UC San Diego. The paper had "distasteful content."

The police had calls from students who were upset by that, but "sometimes that happens when you have free speech." He didn't see any violations of the law.

"I can't do anything about the content," he explained. "I'm just here to keep the peace."

So far, everyone involved had been "very cooperative." Koala representatives got a permit upon request. But if someone obstructed the walkway or someone's ability to walk by, they'd be arrested for a violation of penal code section 647c, he said.

When contacted by a reporter, those handing out the newspaper declined to be interviewed unless they were paid with beer. The Enterprise-Record declined.

However, a call to a phone number listed as the office of The Koala yielded an interview with someone who identified himself as Brian Barton, editor and UCSD political science major.

The paper used to publish sports scores, but switched to comedy years ago, he explained.

And why was a UCSD paper visiting Chico?

Because everyone needs a laugh, he said.

Who is sponsoring it?

Those on the paper's staff and student fees, Barton said.

Are they making a political statement?

"Our political statement is that we're pro free speech. We produce something that will humor and enlighten students all across the state," he said.

At least one group of Chico State students seemed to think they were there to provoke an expensive lawsuit.

Caitlin Simpson was standing across the walkway from The Koala distributors, with a group of similarly minded students, holding a petition against The Koala.

"It's more than offensive," she said. "I'm disgusted and embarrassed that it's here. We don't want people to think this is Chico State and what it stands for," she said. The paper makes fun of people with disabilities and illnesses including breast cancer, she noted.

She noted that tour groups visiting the university might mistakenly think it was a Chico State paper.

"They're here to offend people and get kicked off and sue the university" for large amounts of money, she said. "They've scammed other universities and we don't want them to get Chico State."

Erica Pascuzzi said she just wanted people to know they didn't represent Chico State or its students. She said she found it's humor socially unacceptable.

Simpson said she believed they were affiliated with FIRE, a litigious free speech group. Erich Wasserman, executive director of FIRE, said his organization had no representatives on Chico State's campus Friday. And they are in no way associated with the publication, though they have represented it and other student papers in the past.

Barton said The Koala opponents are "for suppressing free speech."

The paper "hates all people" including its editor and chief, featured target of some of its humor. One of its editions reportedly featured Barton having a dream where people protest him.

Rick Rees, associate director of student activities, said while the paper contains "tasteless, off-color, provocative" material, the content was irrelevant. He helped the guys from The Koala get a permit, and to his knowledge they went along with the university's reasonable restrictions on the time place and manner of free speech. It's not the first time this sort of thing has happened.

"Last spring right about this time, we had another visit from people working with these kinds of aggressive, litigation-oriented groups," he said.

But he doubted it was a self-funded student expedition to Northern California colleges just to distribute jokes. And many people at Chico State weren't laughing.

"We got a tremendous number of complaints from irate students, not just about content, but the heckling nature" of the distributors. One student reportedly said he was followed and harassed by a newspaper distributor who held a newspaper in front of his face while the student tried to walk by.

"I guess it's drive to Chico and see if they'll take the bait, so we can hit them with an expensive lawsuit," Rees said. "And it's we're all in the name of the truth unless you ask us about us'," calling the group disingenuous at best.

Those involved came to campus to create a disruption. But at Chico State, they only learned there is no campus censor.

"To me, colleges and universities are where we probably have the most free exchange of ideas, and it all goes on all the time with very little restriction ... so I don't know what the deal is," he said.

Rees said the permit requirement allows for some accountability so people who don't like their message can, in theory, know who is behind it.

While freedom of speech is "easy to yell and scream about," it's the college's job to protect the rights of everyone, including those who want to take classes without disruption.

But it may have had a positive outcome in the end. Students upset about the situation came to meeting of a campus body addressing possible changes to university policies on free speech. And he liked what he saw from the students who learned they had equal power to object to a message they don't like.

"It's nice to see the students were so concerned the image of the school they go to," Rees said. Plus, part of his job involves learning situations outside the classroom. "Guess what, that happened today," he said.

After the interview with Barton, the Enterprise-Record received an e-mail from The Koala editor, saying Barton had broken their policy, had nothing to do with the paper, and informing the Enterprise-Record it owes The Koala a case of beer, which could be sent to a UCSD mailbox in La Jolla.

It warned that the consequences of not sending the beer could be "dire."

Again, the Enterprise-Record is declining.

Koala's satire offensive

Ryan Sabalow
Opinion Columnist
April 14, 2004

A few days ago, there was a group handing out inflammatory literature on campus. Taking up positions in and around the most traveled walkways at Chico State, they accosted students on their way to class with copies of their controversial texts.

Over the course of a few days, they handed out thousands of these pamphlets, many of which ended up in the trash or randomly littered around campus.

Though most people didn't seem to mind, a few students took offense to the group's message.

They claimed the text promoted racism and was disgustingly violent and blatantly sexist. They also argued the text advocated hatred toward the homosexual community.

These outraged students thought the literature wasn't representative of the views most students have at Chico State and wanted the information banned. They hoped the group would get kicked off campus.

But nothing happened. The First Amendment saved the day and the religious group was allowed to keep handing out copies of the Bible.

The Bible?

No doubt, you thought I was talking about the controversy surrounding the group of University of California, San Diego, students handing out copies of their "offensive" newspaper, The Koala, last Friday. Check out Scott Jason's story on A-2 for more details about the controversy.

The group of students that was so offended by The Koala didn't notice the similarities between one group of people handing out copies of a newspaper and another group handing out copies of the Bible. The reason: They don't find the Bible offensive. That's the problem with censorship -- what's considered offensive differs from group to group.

There are probably a few people out there who share my opinion that the Bible can be viewed as an offensively violent, sexist and anti-homosexual book. But does that mean others shouldn't be allowed to read it because some of us think this way? Of course not. Just because a group of people disagree with a message doesn't mean that message shouldn't be spoken.

Even though I agreed with the group of angry Chico State students when they told The Orion that much of The Koala was offensive, disgusting toilet humor, I was even more disgusted to see a group trying to make it so we wouldn't be allowed to come to this conclusion for ourselves.

People are supposed to be smart enough to choose what's right or wrong on their own. When one group steps in to tell another what they can and cannot see, both parties have lost what makes all Americans fundamentally free.

Members of the angry student group also told The Orion that the majority of Chico State students found The Koala offensive. No doubt they were right -- the paper was so disgusting that anyone with any inkling of good taste would be offended by the newspaper's smutty photos and vulgar articles.

But when it comes to free speech, it's not the majority we need to worry about. In a free society, it's the group who speaks against the majority who needs the most protection. This is why the Founding Fathers created the First Amendment to begin with - they were worried the majority would squash the voice of people who didn't share popular views.

And though The Koala was tasteless and crass, it was no worse than some of the episodes of "South Park" I've seen.

One episode in particular comes to mind. I'm thinking of the episode that parodies Subway's spokesman, Jared, and his famous sandwich diet. Jared tells the kids of South Park he really lost his weight because of his personal assistants, or "aides," as he called them. The joke, of course, being everyone thinks he's referring to the infamous disease.

Though I had an uncle die from AIDS a few years back, that didn't stop me from getting a chuckle when I saw the show. I realized South Park wasn't just being offensive-- it was using satire to make fun of our society's fascination with dieting and weight loss and those annoyingly lame Subway commercials.

The students who were so up in arms over The Koala didn't notice that much of the vulgar newspaper was written in the same vein as South Park, with many articles using shock value and crude humor to prove a deeper point.

The biggest complaint the angry students had with The Koala's presence on campus, however, was they didn't want the tours of potential freshmen and their parents on campus that day to get a copy of the newspaper and think it was sponsored by Chico State.

They didn't want these "impressionable" future freshmen to think The Koala was representative of our school.

I was more alarmed that these potential Chico State students would see the three University Police cars lurking nearby, hoping to arrest the men handing out The Koala. I didn't want the potentials to think Chico State students live in a place where controversial ideas aren't tolerated.

The Chico State I know is better than that.

Satirical newspaper offends students

Scott Jason
Assistant News Editor
April 14, 2004

A group of Chico State students were offended by the content of a San Diego student newspaper and confronted three men who were handing it out on campus Friday, prompting University Police to monitor the situation.

Sophomore Caitlin Simpson, who was among the students offended by the content of The Koala, a University of California, San Diego satirical newspaper, said she and other students wanted the men and the paper removed from campus because they didn't represent Chico State.

Simpson and four friends told people walking between Meriam Library and the bridge that leads to Butte Hall not to take copies of The Koala because it was offensive. Across the walkway, Mike Nitzani, George and Aaron (both refused to give their last names) continued to hand out the paper. The three handed out about 5,000 copies of The Koala to people walking in that area Thursday and Friday.

University Police Sgt. Eric Reichel said it is the men's free-speech right to pass out the paper, and the only way they could be arrested was if they were obstructing the public's right of way. Reichel and two other officers watched from patrol cars parked by the library, the bridge and Glenn Hall to make sure the situation didn't escalate.

"I want both sides to know this is a safe and secure place," Reichel said. "I don't think it is overkill. We're just preventing anything from happening."

Simpson said she was particularly offended by a part of the newspaper about children with Prader-Willi Syndrome because her brother has it.

"When I read that, I cried," she said. "For them to make fun of the that -- not only is it sick, it's offensive."

Prader-Willi Syndrome is a genetic disorder that, among other things, can cause a "chronic feeling of hunger that can lead to excessive eating and life-threatening obesity" according to the Prader-Willi Syndrome Association's Web site.

In the paper, a fake advertisement showed a child's play set that is completely edible. Next to the photo, the caption reads "...if they're going to eat themselves into oblivion, why not do it in style."

Simpson created a petition calling the paper "degrading to disabled people, men, women and us as students." She said she and her friends gathered 70 signatures in 45 minutes.

"We had people walking up to us to sign our petition," she said.

George, a former Koala editor and UC San Diego graduate, said the newspaper is meant to be satirical and they can't control what people find offensive. He said he thinks the fake advertisement that upset Simpson is the funniest thing in the paper and that he wishes he'd thought of it himself.

"If you can't take a joke, you shouldn't be reading our paper," George said.

Nitzani, a senior writer for The Koala, said the three were on a road trip and heard Chico was a fun place. He said they have been to Humboldt State, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and University of California, Berkeley. Nitzani said the three police cars are not a big deal, and the police have responded at other schools when they were on campus.

Nitzani said they got a positive response the first day they were distributing papers at Chico State, but he is used to people being angered by the newspaper.

"It's satirical and satire is strong," he said. "Some people don't like it."

Petition against Hate-Filled UCSD Publication

From: http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/opinion/2004/6953.html

A large reason why the Students of Color Conference is taking place at the UCSD campus is to protest The Koala, a UCSD-backed "humor" publication that relies on racism, sexism and homophobia for its comic material. The magazine goes so far as to slander specific minority students of the UCSD campus.

UCSD's "Principles of Community" are rules that are supposed to govern all its publications. These principles uphold the First Amendment right to free speech, but they also clearly state the following: "We promote open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity, confidentiality and respect."

The Valentine's Day issue of The Koala featured sections entitled "Highly Necessary Woman-Bashing" and "A Matter of Homo," as well as a section explaining why rape is funny. The magazine published its Top 5 Questions About Rape, which included such questions as "What if she's unconscious?", "What if I bought her dinner?" and "What if I put $5 on the bed when I'm done?"

The issue preceding the Valentine's Day issue featured "The Anti-Asian Page" and an article entitled "God Damn Those Africans." Here is a direct quote from that article, which pretends to be about Africanized bees: "Unlike the civilized Europeans, these Africans are unpredictable and violent. They wear bright colors and travel in gangs killing people with little provocation. They take over any area they can and never do any work. In fact, even when they do work, all they do is make everyone less productive."

If you find these articles not funny and very disturbing, please join the Petition Against the Koala by going to www.msa-ucsd.com/koala.html, or see The Koala yourself by visiting www.koala.org.

Letter to The Daily Nexus

http://dailynexus.com/opinion/2004/7014.html

Bryan Barton
Wednesday March 31, 2004

We at The Koala hope this column will serve as a reminder to the Joel Galsters of the world that if you are an oblivious idiot, maybe you should consider whether 15 seconds of research and 10 seconds of thought might be appropriate before writing an opinion piece for a university newspaper.

We take issue with your characterization and selective quotation of our newspaper and its subject matter in Galster's column ("A.S. Gears Up to Protest Fee Hike and One Offensive Koala," Daily Nexus, March 5). The basic concern stems from your use of quotation marks to impugn our classification as a humor paper. We'd have thought that you might have figured out that perhaps not everything in our paper should be taken literally. Your reckless accusations against us amount to nothing less than the intentional misdirection of your audience, many of whom have never heard of The Koala and couldn't follow your link because you didn't bother to get our URL right.

We do not rely on sexism, racism and homophobia for our content; these are merely topics that we choose not to automatically eliminate from discussion in our paper. Humor is always about the unexpected and the uncomfortable, so it should not surprise anyone that a humor publication deals with topics widely considered taboo. Furthermore, we are not an opinion newspaper. To the extent that you insist that everything in our paper is reflective of who we are or what we believe or promote, you should try to read our next issue with an eye toward a better understanding of the word "sarcasm."

Continuing in the vein of education via The Koala, a newspaper cannot commit slander, as you have accused us of having done. Slander is a crime committed through oral communication, not written. The written equivalent of slander is called "libel" and because we have never had a charge of libel or slander brought against us to our knowledge, it is your newspaper that is guilty of this offense, not ours.

You reference our school's Principles of Community. We concede that our newspaper does not often handle things with "sensitivity," and our "respect" is earned, not freely given. Fortunately, and contrary to your claim, the Principles of Community have no binding power over any student or organization at UCSD. If it did, it would be thrown out as completely unconstitutional. We happen to believe strongly in the value of our constitutional rights, so not only will we refuse to be held to any unconstitutional restrictions proposed by the Principles of Community, we will do everything legally within our means to defy this affront to the founding documents of our nation.

We think it's a pretty lowball tactic to pull jokes from our newspaper, remove the punch lines, and then accuse us of sexism, racism and homophobia. Yes, we investigated the topic of date rape, looking for humor. That's because we're a humor paper. If you say that men don't have at least some expectation of sexual reciprocation for buying dinner for a lady, you've clearly never been on a date. The Koala didn't cause this to be true, yet you say that we shouldn't make fun of it? We satirize these things.

You conclude with offering up a path for action for those who were very disturbed by your deceptive and idiotic presentation of our paper. Good for you. Maybe if you get us shut down, some hypersensitive individual will find something "very disturbing" in your newspaper and shut you down. Maybe then, it can happen to every newspaper and entirely dry up free expression in this country. Instead, we can have a bunch of balding, old white guys and their student-government lapdogs telling us what to think and write. Sounds great. That petition is at www.msa-ucsd.com/koala.html. Or you could pull the stick out of your ass, grab a beer and a joint, and enjoy the latest issue of The Koala at www.thekoala.org.

UCSB, we invite you to choose as you like.

Bryan Barton is the editor of The Koala.

Magazine at UCSD lampoons Islam, UNION-TRIBUNE June 6, 2003

from:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030606-9999_7m6muslim.html

Many in community share outrage, fear

By Eleanor Yang
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

June 6, 2003

Hundreds of copies of a publication portraying Muslim women as sexual objects and ridiculing Jews, Jesus, and Palestinians were distributed at UC San Diego yesterday and Wednesday, prompting sharp condemnations by the administration and student leaders.

The 16-page publication, partially titled "An Entertainment Magazine for the Islamic Man," features crudely drawn images of Islamic men and women naked, masturbating, and having sex while facing Mecca. One of the few pages that doesn't feature sexually explicit material lists a fake 8-step guide to mail a bomb. The San Diego Union-Tribune is not running the magazine's full title because of its vulgarity.

Several Muslim students said they were so disturbed by the graphic nature of the images and the wide distribution on campus that they felt compelled to leave.

"Words can't even begin to describe the pain, the violation, the humiliation, of being degraded publicly in such a malicious way," said Muslema Purmul, a UCSD junior.

UCSD Vice Chancellor Joseph Watson yesterday sent out a three-paragraph, campus-wide memo calling the publication "obscene, vile and deplorable," deserving of the university's "strongest condemnation."

Watson, who said he has received at least three dozen e-mails from people complaining about the publication, added that although the university is concerned about the publication, it doesn't consider it a criminal act.

The student government Wednesday night passed a resolution calling for increased education and dialogue to promote a sense of community, and dozens of student leaders met yesterday to brainstorm solutions.

Muslim Student Association President Amir Fahid said more education would be the long-term solution. Fahid added that in the past year, someone tried to throw a large stack of newspapers on his head while he was praying in a study lounge. This quarter, he said, Muslim students have been cursed at and told to leave the country.

"The next step is going to be violence against Muslims," he warned.

Several Muslim students said yesterday that for the first time, they feel unsafe on campus.

"I haven't been able to study in two days," said Fatima Aimaq, a freshman and practicing Muslim. "When hatred surfaces and you see that people hate and disrespect you, it's hard to feel safe on campus."

Administrators have begun to investigate whether the publication was written and distributed by UCSD students. Some students have linked the publication with students who put out The Koala, an irreverent, satirical newspaper. A picture of The Koala is featured in the publication, being read by someone covered head to toe in a head scarf and robe. University officials have not confirmed the connection.

Officials are investigating whether the student code of conduct was violated. If, for example, a student organization receiving school funds put out the publication, it is required to print the publisher and a disclaimer. No articles carried bylines or publisher information.

The investigation could take weeks, said Nick Aguilar, director of student policies and judicial affairs.

Meanwhile, other organizations have condemned the publication. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee of San Diego has asked a regional hate crimes coalition to investigate.

"It's clearly a hate incident," said Morris Casuto, the regional director of the San Diego Anti-Defamation League.

Student publishers won't be punished

from:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20030726-9999_1m26ucsd.html

UCSD says articles ridiculing Islam are protected speech

By Eleanor Yang
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

July 26, 2003

A UC San Diego investigation into the distribution and publication of a magazine ridiculing Islam has concluded that the students involved will not be disciplined because the content is protected speech.

While images and articles in the magazine portraying Muslim women as sexual objects were highly offensive, university officials said, they were satirical and therefore not defamatory.

"The campus understands that there are going to be publications that contain very offensive and objectionable content," said Nick Aguilar, UCSD's director of student policies and judicial affairs. "But the First Amendment is of higher order of importance for us in making sure we do not discourage or interfere with the rights of our students."

The administration investigated whether the student conduct code was violated. Examples of that are cheating, bribery and theft. While there was insufficient evidence to show a conduct violation, Aguilar said the student group, known as The Koala, also broke Associated Student Media rules. Among other things, the magazine did not include a disclaimer noting that the views in the publication are not representative of the Associated Students at UCSD.

As a result of the violations, the group's funding for next year could be frozen. The Associated Students is investigating, and could reach a conclusion in the next several weeks, said Paul DeWine, the AS adviser.

Hundreds of copies of the magazine, which was partially titled "An Entertainment Magazine for the Islamic Man" were distributed during the first week of June on the La Jolla campus, prompting strong condemnations from the university administration, dozens of student leaders and community groups.

The San Diego Union-Tribune is not running the magazine's full title because of its vulgarity.

Some Muslim students yesterday said they were disappointed with the results of the investigation and said they might work to have student funding for the organization frozen.

"Ideally, I wanted the university to say this was not protected speech," said Muslema Purmul, a 21-year-old religious studies student at UCSD. "Common sense tells you this should not be printed on a college campus."

Purmul said she and other members of UCSD's Muslim Student Association are considering organizing events to spread awareness of the Islamic faith, and calling for more Islamic courses at UCSD, which would address what she characterized as the deeper problem of student ignorance.

Victory at UCSD, but Deception Remains; Administration Drops Case Against The Koala

June 21, 2002

FIRE Press Release

LA JOLLA, CA—On June 19, 2002, the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) announced that it had dropped its charge of "disruption" against a student humor publication, The Koala. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, UCSD claims that "neither the complaint nor the hearing concerned The Koala's editorial content." FIRE has been active in the case since early May, upholding the principles that the First Amendment restricts the authority of administrators of public universities and that students ought to be treated equally.

"The UCSD administration has failed to drive The Koala from campus," said Thor L. Halvorssen, executive director of FIRE, "but the threat of similar proceedings chills free speech on UCSD's campus. Students now know that they risk an inquisition from UCSD administrators who disregard the Bill of Rights when they don't approve of what is said."

The Koala is a satiric student humor publication. In November 2001, a student photographer (not a member of The Koala) sent it photographs that he had taken of a meeting of a student group, MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil de Chicanos de Aztlán). The Koala then used the photographs in a critical parody of MEChA's president, Ernesto Martinez. In February 2002, UCSD charged The Koala with violating the Student Code's prohibition of "disruption of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures, or other UCSD or University activities."

On May 22, 2002, FIRE wrote to remind UCSD of a 1995 case when another UCSD student publication, Voz Fronteriza, celebrated the death of a Latino Immigration and Naturalization Service officer and called for the murder of other such "race traitors." In that case, UCSD—including Vice Chancellor Joseph W. Watson, whose office oversaw this year's trial of The Koala—vigorously affirmed Voz Fronteriza's "right to publish their views without adverse administrative action, " because "student newspapers are protected by the first amendment of the U.S. constitution."

No such consideration was given to The Koala. In the 1995 Voz Fronteriza case, the UCSD administration issued a formal statement that the University was "legally prohibited from censuring the content of student publications." In March 2002, Vice Chancellor Watson wrote to "all academics...staff...and students at UCSD": "We condemn The Koala's abuse of the Constitutional guarantees of free expression and disfavor their unconscionable behavior."

FIRE possesses documents and emails showing that after the MEChA meeting in November 2001, the University encouraged official complaints from Ernesto Martinez, and instructed him on how to proceed legally and informally against The Koala. Director of Student Policy and Judicial Affairs Nicholas S. Aguilar—abandoning even the appearance of impartiality—denounced the "hate, bigotry, and intolerance" of The Koala. Aguilar encouraged Martinez to submit to his office "any complaints of alleged misconduct not based on the content of the publication." He further assured Martinez of his and the UCSD's administration's support of "the UCSD Principles of Community," which, in his view, Martinez was defending against The Koala. Nevertheless, Aguilar did not recuse himself from the case.

UCSD's "Principles of Community" modify the First Amendment: "We affirm the right to freedom of expression at UCSD. We promote open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity, confidentiality and respect." Ironically, MEChA, by instructions of its National Constitution, orders each individual chapter to "orient" members around "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán," which denounces "the brutal 'gringo' invasion of our territories" (an "Aztlán" nation that includes the Southwestern states of the United States of America) and refuses ownership of land to "the foreign Europeans." "FIRE," Halvorssen observed, "would protect MEChA's right, under the U.S. Constitution, to argue for such a view, but we note that UCSD hypocritically and selectively violates both its own obligations to that Constitution and its own unconstitutional restrictions of speech on behalf of 'courtesy' and 'sensitivity.'"

In its proceedings against The Koala, UCSD showed far greater interest in convicting the publication than in upholding its obligations to the First Amendment. On May 22, 2002, the day that UCSD received its letter from FIRE, the UCSD Judicial Board opened the trial to the campus media. The UCSD administration refused to participate and left the hearing. Two days later, Aguilar, who had applauded Martinez, nullified the hearing and ordered a retrial behind closed doors. That secret trial was held on June 5, 2002. The dismissal of the charges nominally stems from this hearing.

"FIRE has been our staunchest ally throughout this ordeal," said George Liddle, editor-in-chief of The Koala. "Thanks to FIRE's efforts, the constitutional rights of The Koala have been defended against an administration seeking, in any way possible, to silence and disband our publication."

FIRE is a nonprofit educational foundation that unites civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process rights, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience on our campuses.

FIRE's Analysis of The UCSD Statement (In Full) Regarding the Koala/Judicial Board Hearing

June 21, 2002

FIRE Press Release

CLAIM:
The student-comprised Judicial Board at the University of California, San Diego ruled on June 5, 2002 that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate a student complaint that representatives of the Koala, an independent student-run newspaper, had disrupted a November 19, 2001 meeting of another student group, the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). The charges against the Koala were consequently dropped.

FACT:
On June 19, 2002, the day after FIRE issued its press release—which garnered major national media attention and inquiries to UCSD—George Liddle, the editor-in-chief of The Koala, received notice of the dismissal of the charges. If UCSD dropped the charges on June 5, why in the world did UCSD wait two full weeks—during final exams, no less—to inform those involved of its decision? If the claim is true, the behavior only further highlights UCSD's disregard for due process, fundamental fairness, the chilling of free expression, and student lives.

On June 10, 2002, UCSD Director of Student Policy and Judicial Affairs Nicholas S. Aguilar, who oversees the Judicial Board, faxed a response to FIRE's letter of May 22, 2002. He did not speak of "dropped" charges. Rather, he claimed simply that the current actions against The Koala were not motivated by content.

CLAIM:
The student complaint and hearing focused exclusively on alleged disruptive behavior by an alleged Koala staff member. Neither the complaint nor the hearing concerned the Koala's editorial content.

FACT:
As FIRE noted in its May 22, 2002 letter to UCSD: "The very weakness of this 'disruption' charge indicates that UCSD has an outside motive for prosecuting The Koala, and it appears all but certain that this motive is The Koala's controversial content." If the case, in fact, involved nothing more than a student taking photographs at a public meeting, a charge of "disruption" and the serious consequences of a conviction—the UCSD administration proposed an eighteen-month suspension of publication and a five-year probation as a compromise "settlement"—were grossly disproportionate and baseless. UCSD's own reiterated pronouncements on The Koala reveal the charge of "disruption" as a pretext for removing the publication from campus.

Statements made and actions taken by University officials leave no doubt that the administration had a strong prejudice against The Koala:

# In a November 25, 2001 email to MEChA President Ernesto Martinez, Director of Student Policy and Judicial Affairs Nicholas S. Aguilar—who is responsible for the fair execution of campus judicial proceedings—reminded him of a meeting between Aguilar, Martinez, and Vice Chancellor Watson. In that email, Aguilar "encouraged" Martinez "to contact Student Legal Services for assistance in assessing legal recourse that may be available to you and other who were targets of The Koala publication." Also in that email, Aguilar praised Martinez for standing up to the "hate, bigotry, and intolerance" of The Koala. In another email dated November 28, 2001, Aguilar indicated to Martinez that a college administrator, Elizabeth Urtecho, "was developing a plan to counter/mitigate the negative consequences of The Koala publication on UCSD campus environment."

# In the November 29, 2001 issue of The UCSD Guardian, Chancellor Robert C. Dynes stated publicly that although The Koala's parody of MEChA "may be protected by the First Amendment, it is a clear violation of our UCSD Principles of Community and our goal of a hate-free campus."

# On March 8, 2002, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson stated, "We condemn The Koala's abuse of the Constitutional guarantees of free expression and disfavor their unconscionable behavior."

These statements demonstrate that the UCSD administration, working with Martinez, was moving against The Koala precisely on the basis of content, even to the consideration of legal action. Such efforts went far beyond any helpful role of administrators and constituted active participation in a campaign to remove the publication from campus life.

The unequal treatment of two campus publications—Voz Fronteriza in 1995 and The Koala today—implies that content is the only possible variable in explaining why The Koala was prosecuted. No other publication receives such stern condemnation from UCSD administrators—and Voz Fronteriza's calls to murder U.S. government officials elicited precisely the opposite reaction from UCSD, including then and current Vice Chancellor Watson. On the one hand, citing the First Amendment, UCSD claimed that Voz Fronteriza had the right, which it vigorously and publicly defended, to call for the deaths of Latino INS officers. On the other hand, UCSD found that The Koala's parody of MEChA's president deserved public condemnation and a campaign to "counter/mitigate" The Koala's influence. For UCSD, in violation of its constitutional obligations, content is the critical variable.

CLAIM:
We also would like to clarify a secondary issue which [sic] arose in the course of this proceeding. Another UCSD student publication, the Guardian, asked permission to attend the hearing. Under university policies, the privacy of participants in disciplinary hearings is paramount. Closed hearings are a normal procedure in the case of disciplinary issues. To protect the privacy of its student records, UCSD was unable to comply with that request.

FACT:
This was not a charge against individual students, with penalties for those students, but a charge, already public and widely discussed by administrators and campus media, against a student publication, with penalties for that publication. The rightful interest of a large number of campus media to attend this hearing was denied not from any claims of privacy under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act, but simply from UCSD's desire to suppress The Koala behind closed doors. If UCSD were actually concerned with the rights of its students, they never would have brought these outrageous charges in the first place.

Koala TV Front Page Guardian Article 2/14/05: SRTV broadcasts sexual acts

Koala editor, A.S. appointee York cites free speech

By CHARLES NGUYEN
Staff Writer

In an effort to bolster student free speech rights, John Muir College senior Steve York broadcast an hour-and-a-half segment featuring sexual acts he performed with an unidentified woman during his Student-Run Television show, “Koala TV.�?

The Feb. 3 pornography piece was the first in a series of segments to be aired in the spirit of open expression, according to York, who is also the editor of the Koala and A.S. elections manager.

“It’s my effort to bridge the gap between students and their sexual desires in a fun way,�? York said. “This is only the first of a number of adult works being produced as we speak, all of which will be aired to the students of this school.�?

Since SRTV is a closed-circuit station, indecency regulations specified by the Federal Communications Commission do not apply. SRTV rules allow for pornographic broadcasts, as long as they are not copyrighted and are aired between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., according to SRTV station manager Chelsea Welch. Despite initial surprise about York’s piece, SRTV had been informed of his intentions to air the program last fall, Welch said.

“We were all aware that he was going to make this film and there were no objections from members,�? Welch said. “After seeing the film, I was still shocked that he actually did it, but I was proud that he went through with it.�?

The Closed-Circuit TV Stations Governance committee, established in the fall, is the only campus committee that applies specifically to SRTV. The initial format of the committee, drafted by Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson, included only one student representative. However, Watson added a representative from each of the six colleges after complaints from A.S. President Jenn Pae.

The committee was created in response to the shutdown of SRTV for four days last May, stemming from Thornton Hospital patients’ complaints that the station was broadcasting obscene material. SRTV managers were uncertain whether the material aired was a part of regular programming or if a break-in at the station occurred because administrators refused to explain what they saw.

York considers the committee an obstacle to SRTV content.

“It’s obvious from the focus on the committee and the student representatives on it that they do not want the administration’s hands on ‘their’ stations and judging their content,�? he said. “I see it as another step to control the counter-culture of this school that has kept the status quo in check for as long as this campus has existed.�?

Members of the committee will not regulate content, but merely “review the mission, governance and operations status and guidelines for the college and ASUCSD campus television stations, and discuss, with those responsible for each of the stations, changes in the guidelines needed to make [them] explicitly clear,�? according to the committee’s official description.

The last committee meeting is scheduled for Feb. 14, before a report summarizing content responsibility is submitted to Watson, according to Welch.

Committee members have not addressed and do not plan to address York’s broadcast, according to committee chair and Director of Student Policies and Judicial Affairs Nicholas S. Aguilar.

“The committee has not been asked to respond to the incident,�? Aguilar said. “It is not the charge of the committee to respond to specific complaints, but only to answer questions that arise out of the campus charter for the vice chancellor.�?

A.S. representatives support all avenues of SRTV free speech, according to A.S. Commissioner of Student Services Kian Maleki.

“[The Associated Students] hopes that the administration considers the age and breadth of the audience SRTV caters to if the time comes that they decide to make some changes,�? Maleki said. “The administration is frequently trying to tighten purse-strings where it can, and controversial services like [SRTV] … are constantly feeling the pinch.�?

A.S. Adviser Lauren Weiner also contacted SRTV managers concerning York’s show, according to Welch.

“She was very objective about it and she wanted to know what had been aired and how it was in compliance with SRTV’s charter and bylaws so that if she was asked questions about it, she would know what to say,�? Welch said. “I talked to her about it and went through how the film did not violate FCC regulations regarding obscenity, and that was it.�?

Despite support from SRTV and Associated Students, York is ready to respond if any action is taken against his show.

“If any legal action is taken or further pressed, I will have no problem assembling a coalition of free-speech supporters and the entire might of the adult industry to bear against this school for infringing on our rights as adults and students paying for our own television services,�? York said.

If students are opposed to any SRTV broadcast, Associated Students encourages their participation in programming efforts, according to Maleki.

Readers can contact Charles Nguyen at charles_nguyen@sbcglobal.net.