Search Details

Word: published (lookup in dictionary) (lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first (reverse)


Usage:

That point was apparently lost on those here at The Crimson who thought that refusing to publish a Playboy recruitment ad was the best way to attack immorality...

Author: By Michael W. Hirschorn, | Title: The Crimson's Hubris | 3/5/1986 | See Source »

Some will argue that refusing to publish an advertisement is censorship. They are clearly wrong, for a newspaper must have control over its own pages, and it's certainly within The Crimson's prerogative, both legally and ethically, to refuse space to whomever it chooses...

Author: By Michael W. Hirschorn, | Title: The Crimson's Hubris | 3/5/1986 | See Source »

Some will argue that refusing to publish an advertisement infringes on free speech. Not really, for advertising is not free speech, and, in any case, the Playboy ad is not an opinion. As one editor noted at Sunday's in-house discussion of the ad issue, one must be able to disagree with an opinion, and the counter-argument to the Playboy solicitation is "No, a Playboy photographer will not be at the Somerville Holiday Inn this week...

Author: By Michael W. Hirschorn, | Title: The Crimson's Hubris | 3/5/1986 | See Source »

This truism is not relevant to Playboy, for the magazine, thanks in part to news coverage generated by The Crimson's dispute and by prominent coverage on page one of this newspaper, is having "free speech" a-plenty. The argument is relevant to those who voted not to publish the advertisement, because they failed to see their own self-interest. Put simply, they did not have enough faith in our community to believe that female students would be as repulsed by the concept of posing nude for Playboy (and by the magazine itself) as women at The Crimson were...

Author: By Michael W. Hirschorn, | Title: The Crimson's Hubris | 3/5/1986 | See Source »

...unwilling to express differing editorial opinions. Our argument does not concern whether Democrats or Republicans are correct in their beliefs (a question you seem to have already answered, as shown in little or no editorial balance) but it would be hoped that a newspaper of worth would attempt to publish differing opinions on important political issues. Your recent editorials on the President's State of the Union Address of Monday, February 10, and the Gramm-Rudman editorial of February 11 only support our complaint...

Author: By Brooks Ensign, | Title: One-Sided | 2/13/1986 | See Source »

Previous | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | Next