Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Ann Premer, Editor Jamie Holman, Business manager
Gerry Doyle, Managing editor Sara Cropper, Retail sales manager
Angie Kuhn, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
4A
Wednesday, March 10, 1999
Clay McCuistion / KANSAN
Editorial
First Amendment needed high court's support in Stone lawsuit
The U.S. Supreme Court committed a serious assault on First Amendment liberties Monday when it allowed a lawsuit to proceed against filmmaker Oliver Stone.
The suit, brought by the Louisiana family of a shooting victim, alleges that Stone's 1994 film Natural Born Killers incited a 1995 robbery that left a businessman dead and a convenience store employee paralyzed. The plaintiffs demand that Stone and the film's distributor be held responsible and are asking for damages.
By refusing to dismiss the suit against Stone and the film's distributor, Time Warner Entertainment Co., the court has given the go-ahead for further persecution of artists whose work explores anything out of the realm of family-friendly, G-rated entertainment.
The case against Stone arose from a shooting in a Ponchatoula, La., convenience store in which a young couple allegedly mimicked scenes of violence that appeared in Natural Born Killers, a satire about the media's glamoriza-
Influence of Natural Born Killers in question after Louisiana shooting.
tion of criminals.
According to the lawsuit, the couple viewed the video repeatedly before committing the criminal acts.
Although Natural Born Killers in fact criticizes rather than exalts the increasing amount of sex and violence in today's pop culture, the nation's highest court didn't see it that way. Without comment, the court sent the case back to the Louisiana court system for trial.
the implications of any ruling against Stone and Time Warner are immense for other artists. If Stone is found responsible, it will encourage other persons, who believe they were wronged by the "evils" of Hollywood, to seek out retribution.
The danger of lawsuits could make Hollywood less likely to make films that deal with or portray scenes of sex
and violence. That threat ultimately amounts to prior restraint against artists' right to free expression.
The Supreme Court's decision to allow the case to proceed files in the face of accepted First Amendment wisdom.
Little has been said about the mental stability of Patsy Byers' attackers. Millions of people around the world have seen Natural Born Killers, and it seems that the vast majority of those viewers have refrained from violent outbursts.
The court's ruling arrived only a day after the death of filmmaker Stanley Kubrick, whose 1971 film A Clockwork Orange prompted similar claims of copycat crimes. Complaints against A Clockwork Orange, which contained scenes of violent beatings and rapes, eventually drove the film out of distribution in England, Kubrick's homeland. The film remains banned in England.
The right to free expression was placed in the Bill of Rights for a proper reason. Artists should not have to worry about whether potentially unstable persons react poorly to their work.
Jeremv Doherty for the editorial board
Simon Says
Kansan staff
Ryan Koerner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editorial
Jeremy Doherty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate editorial
Aaron Marvin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News
Laura Roddy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News
Melissa Ngo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . News
Aaron Knopf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Online
Erin Thompson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sports
Marc Sheforden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate sports
Chris Fickett . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campus
Sarah Hale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Campus
T.R. Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Features
Steph Brewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associate features
Augustus Anthony Piazza . . . . . . . . . . . . Photo
Chris Dye . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Design, graphics
Carl Kaminski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wire
Carolyn Mollott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special sections
Laura Veazey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neues clerk
Brant Henderson / Special to the KANSAN
News editors
Advertising managers
Matt Lopez ... Special sections
Jennifer Patch ... Campus
Micah Kafitz ... Regional
Jon Schlitt ... National
Tyler Cook ... Marketing
Shannon Curran .. PR/ Intern manager
Chista Estep .. Production
Steven Prince .. Production
Chris Corley .. Creative
Jason Hannah .. Classified
Corinne Buffmire .. Zone
莎auntae Blue .. Zone
Brandi Byram .. Zone
Brian Allers .. Zone
Justin Allen .. Zone
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"Whatever needs to be maintained through force is doomed." — Henry Miller
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stufaer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions.
For any questions, call Ryan Koerner or Jerome Doherty at 864-4924.
Guest columns: Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924.
Perspective
Misinformation clouds intent of Heidegger series
As professors of the philosophy course,
"Heidegger and the Greeks," that is bringing four distinguished Heidegger scholars to campus this semester, we feel we
scholars to campus this's must respond to the misinformed and reckless rhetoric with which both our lecture series and our course have been repeatedly criticized.
Thomas Tuozzo
Guest columnist
Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the philosophy of the 20th century knows that Martin Heidegger is one of its most powerful and influential thinkers. The subtlety and originality of his thought have shaped a major tradition of European philosophical work and have exerted a strong influence on such diverse fields as literary criticism, religious studies, art history and architecture.
Courses dealing with various aspects of Heidegger's thought are offered throughout the University of Kansas, not just in the philosophy department. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that not a semester goes by in which there is not a course or two offered
that includes Heidegger's work
It is true that Heidegger joined the Nazi Party after it came to power and that for 10 months at the beginning of the regime, he served the Nazis as rector of Freiburg University.
In the last decade, it has become more widely known that after the war, Heidegger downplayed and misrepresented his initial enthusiasm for the Nazis and the extent to which, as rector, he implemented their educational policies — including discrimination against Jewish professors and students.
These issues are valid and important, even pressing, subjects for study. In particular, Heidegger's connection with the Nazis needs to be studied further, and it must never be glossed over or excused, as sometimes has been done in the past.
Accordingly, there has been a great deal of scholarly research and debate concerning the nature and extent of Heidegger's political engagement during the Nazi period, as well as concerning his private conduct toward former friends and colleagues who were Jews or otherwise politically out of favor.
Heidegger's involvement with the Nazis can be seen as an extreme example of a troubling feature of much of the history of the West: the connections — sometimes hidden, sometimes obvious — between the production of cultural works of dazzling power and originality, on the one hand, and the oppression — and worse — of non-European peoples and marginalized European groups, on the other.
But not every course about Western culture need investigate its complicity in oppression, nor does every course about Heidegger need to take as its theme his relation to the politics of his time.
But, however deplorable Heidegger's private behavior or brief service as a Nazi university administrator, there can be no gainsaying the importance and magnitude of his philosophical achievement.
To suggest that Heidegger's philosophy is the theory of which Hitler's regime was the practice displays an ignorance of Heidegger's work so complete as to be undeserving a response were it not so harmful — harmful to those personally touched by the Nazi genocide, whose passions are here evoked on a false pretext; harmful to the distinguished Heidegger scholars who will visit our University, whose good names are tainted; harmful to the mission of the University itself, insofar as the opportunity for open and serious study of difficult philosophical material is jeopardized.
Heidegger's work in no way simply constitutes an endorsement or rationalization of Nazi policies. Given the fact that many prominent Heideggerian philosophers and scholars — such as Jacques Derrida and Emmanuel Levinas — are Jews, it would be astonishing if it did.
Our course focuses on the philosophical encounter with Greek thought that Heidegger engaged in throughout his life. The material is complex and difficult, but its study is important and rewarding.
We are fortunate to have the assistance of the four internationally recognized experts who will be visiting our seminar and giving a related series of public lectures. We are confident the University community understands the value of our endeavor and supports the unique opportunity for learning the class and lectures represent.
Tuozzo is an associate professor of philosophy. Rush is an assistant professor of philosophy. They are co-teaching Philosophy 820. Heidegger and the Greeks.A series of campuswide lectures will be held this semester in connection with the class.
'Attractive' Lewinsky dodged responsibility
F or Americans who didn't watch WB's Charmed last Wednesday night, Monica Lewinsky made her stunning debut to the nation. Barbara Walters did the interview
on ABC and, like any other Barbara Walters interview, she presented a celebrity as a victim. Brilliantly orchestrated, it surely is not a coincidence that ABC fit the interview into a time slot that allowed viewers to catch Beverly Hills 90210 before tuning in.
First things first. Lewinsky looked presentable and borderline attractive. ABC evidently has the best make-up people in the
Jenny Oakson opinion @ kansan.com
business. They even made Walters look good. But if intelligent and regretful was the look Lewinsky was looking for, she needed more than lip gloss.
Here's a take on the interview:
Here's a base of information.
8 p.m. The interview opened with the first of many segments featuring Walters at a news desk highlighting what questions the interview would cover and exactly who Monica Lewinsky is, the latter part obviously designated for returning astronauts and Biodome participants.
With a series of stock clips of Bill Clinton with the intern and Beverly Hills home videos, viewers saw the evolution of Monica Lewinsky, lonely and fat, to Monica Lewinsky, sans beret, smiling for photographers and mildly overweight.
8:08 p.m. Lewinsky said, halfheartedly, "I realize the pain I've caused you, country," all the while hiding behind her weight problem and the abuse she's experienced from society and the press (see above).
Then, she noted she prays everyday that she isn't having another affair with a married man. First, it's the President's fault, then Linda Tripp's, then Ken Starr's, and now it seems that Lewinsky believes God had some involvement in the scandal. One can receive immunity from criminal charges, but there is no immunity from responsibility or reality.
8:26 p.m. ABC displayed a very Lawn Mower Man-esque computer-generated map of the oval office. Is it really important how Lewinsky snuck in and out of the White House? It's not like she demonstrated any skill in being discreet about the whole mess.
8:19 p.m. News broke that the President of the United States is a "good kisser." Sure, he may have seemed like a smooth operator to a woman of Lewinsky's stature, but the American people know they've had more suave leaders. Try comparing Marilyn Monroe to Monica Lewinsky — it's like comparing prime rib to ground chuck, which is rather appropriate for a president whose daily jog includes a Big Mac steak.
8:47 p.m. Walters got her to cry. When Lewinsky got all teary-eyed after Walters played a very emotional Linda Tripp tape, it was hard to tell if Lewinsky truly was sad or just upset to be proven such a sucker.
9:02 p.m. Walters brought up the infamous blue dress. Lewinsky said discussion of the dress was the most humiliating thing that has happened to her. I guess she missed the millions of cigar references during the past two years.
8:27 p.m. Walters asked Lewinsky why she didn't just get on with her life, to which Lewinsky answered with some emotional excuse. It is not hard to understand that Lewinsky was immature, confused and irrational, but never once did she express any regret or acknowledgment of her error. The many smiles and teeth flashes didn't help. She looked more like a screen test than a display of remorse.
9:16 p.m. Lewinsky whined that the president never brought her back to the White House as he promised he would when he was re-elected. Campaign promises are a dime a dozen, Mon. At least she got the book deal. Clinton probably had promised Paula Jones a nose iob.
9:28 p.m. Lewinsky revealed that she has been, and still is, on medication. It seems she's over-rationalized in her head her motivation to act as she did, but flaunting depression problems is too trite. Not too many people would be able to keep cheery with such an awful high school musical video circulating. Why plead insanity with immunity?
9:53 p.m. "I felt dirty," Lewinsky said to the usual "How did that make you feel?" question from Walters. It's a real shame, too. People commit adultery and screw up in general everyday.
The trouble with Lewinsky, as of today, is that somewhere along the way she has convinced herself that she has been manipulated. Maybe she has, but she didn't once say she was sorry, not even for the trashy detail.
Oakson is an Overland Park senior in English.
r