Friday February 7, 2003   |   wildcat.arizona.edu   |   online since 1994
Campus News
Sports
     ·Basketball
Opinions
LiveCulture
GoWild
Police Beat
People & Places
Comics
Crossword
Online Crossword
WildChat
Classifieds

THE WILDCAT
Write a letter to the Editor

Contact the Daily Wildcat staff

Search the Wildcat archives

Browse the Wildcat archives

Employment at the Wildcat

Advertise in the Wildcat

Print Edition Delivery and Subscription Info

Send feedback to the web designers


UA STUDENT MEDIA
Arizona Student Media info

UATV - student TV

KAMP - student radio

Daily Wildcat staff alumni


Section Header
With freedom comes responsibility

Photo
Illustration by Arnulfo Bermudez
By Bill Wetzel
Arizona Daily Wildcat
Friday February 7, 2003

Living in the United States, we are able to freely express ourselves. Anyone can exercise freedom of speech and press as stated explicitly in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. In order for our country to justify our independence, this amendment must be defended and adhered to without pride or prejudice until the end of time.

With this privilege to disclose personal conviction, we also have the obligation to exercise restraint and discretion in utilizing this right of free speech. Not because there is a law or any other penalty involved, but in consideration of tact for boundaries that should not be crossed.
Photo
Bill Wetzel

So what does this all have to do with the alleged price of a candy bar in Kansas?

In this month's issue of Maxim Magazine ÷ a bastion of intellectual journalism ÷ is an article titled "Maxim's Kick-Ass Workout" depicting a work out plan in which a person can muscle themselves into shape by committing irrational acts of physical violence.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

Screw the Rec center, just go beat somebody up.

Now, do not fret if you can't whip yourself out of a wet paper bag, because the article also includes a "Total Wimp Workout," as well. (Presumably for opinion columnists and Arizona Wildcat football players). This is not a problem, however, other than the idiocy of the whole idea in the first place. No, the problem lies in the photographs that accompany the article.

These render images of a guy in a wife-beater dropping the hammer on a caricature of Mahatma Gandhi. Teaching pacifists a lesson in aggression all in the name of beefing up those shoulders and pecs.

Demeaning one of the most amazing men who ever lived.

Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi was a man of courage and honor. For the sake of his people he took on a crusade of non-violence that led to the eventual liberation of India and Pakistan from the reign of Britain. Several times in the name of peace, Gandhi began a death fast, which he abided to until the warring factions in India ceased fighting completely. These fasts very nearly cost him his life. He was a man of little physical strength, but with immense inner substance the likes of which probably existed in only a handful of people who have ever lived.

In a world of racism, terrorism, pre-emptive attacks and human rights atrocities, Gandhi stands the test of time as a revered historical figure. To be sure, our current crop of world "leaders"÷ if you could call them that ÷ would benefit from learning and emulating the words and wisdom that Gandhi exhibited throughout his lifetime.

In response to this article, Maxim was bombarded by thousands of e-mails and, to their credit, has since issued a statement of apology. Maxim's editor, Keith Blanchard, noted that: "An edgy sense of humour, laced with irony, has always been a central element of Maxim's editorial · For some people, this piece may have gone one step too far."

So how did it end up going one step too far?

Many protesters have since argued that rather than an apology, Maxim should have taken the proper precaution to avoid printing a tasteless article in the first place ÷ which really would have been a simple solution to the problem. If you don't do it, then you won't offend anybody. That would work, except that in a free thinking society everyone has a certain slant to their convictions. No matter what you say or do, stating an opinion on certain topics, such as abortion or the death penalty, is going to strike an offensive chord in somebody.

What an individual seeking to express himself or herself can do is have enough discretion to not step over the boundaries of constructive argument or biting humor. There are obvious taboos to stay away from ÷ portraying the beating of a universally admired man of peace would be one of them. From dusting off old Christa McAuliffe jokes in the wake of the Columbia disaster or printing a suicide letter from a gun-toting madman, there are confines in liberty that should not be crossed.

Freedom may have no limits, but with that privilege there is responsibility.

Bill Wetzel is a creative writing and political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu.

spacer
spacer
divider
divider
divider
UA NEWS | SPORTS | FEATURES | OPINIONS | COMICS
CLASSIFIEDS | ARCHIVES | CONTACT US | SEARCH


Webmaster - webmaster@wildcat.arizona.edu
© Copyright 2002 - The Arizona Daily Wildcat - Arizona Student Media