Pbs has generously chosen to re-broadcast Ken Burns' "The Civil War" over the course of the upcoming week. In watching the first few hours of the documentary, one is struck at Burns' ability to draw upon traces of facts from a previous time and construct a compelling, factual narrative.
One is equally struck by the lack of truth, taste or tact in "Encounter with A. Prick," an "article" produced in the Sept. 19 issue of The Declaration. The author, editors and sponsors of this publication should feel ashamed that this piece would appear next to their names. It is a clumsy abuse of the freedoms of the First Amendment and deserves some kind of private, non-governmental condemnation.
The Declaration, for those who stick to more conventional publications, is a "weekly tabloid-format student newsmagazine," according to the publication's Web site. It prints a variety of articles on a number of topics. They tend to be first person in nature and they are intended to be taken seriously. For example, this past issue contains a first-person account of getting a summer job.
But the article in question featured an author's tale of his sexual encounter with a certain "A. Prick." It lays out an extremely graphic sexual encounter between Prick and the author, Denis Ferhatovic. Thus, at a superficial level, the article amounts to gay pornography. This, on its own, is not a problem worthy of anyone's attention.
It happens that the Prick character in this piece wrote an article in a certain newspaper regarding American militarism. The Cavalier Daily ran a column last Wednesday by a certain Anthony Dick. Mr. Dick espoused the virtues of American military might over the last few decades. Coincidentally, as Prick engages in sexual foreplay, he quotes Dick's column from The Cavalier Daily, and the author takes the care to italicize them.
Thus, Ferhatovic's "A. Prick" is an obvious and clumsy stand-in for Anthony Dick. Anthony Dick is not the gentlest of souls. Rarely have I agreed with him. Few people, however, deserve to be treated in this manner.
If one manages to push through the graphic nature of the piece, one finds that Ferhatovic has a clear problem with Dick's ideas. As Prick/Dick seduces the author, his "masculine" ideas lead him into a kind of militaristic orgy. This technique might be an interesting literary device to certain amoral individuals, provided Ferhatovic actually created a fictitious character. His problem is that he has named his partner.
Putting aside the piece's obvious lack of taste, Ferhatovic and The Declaration have managed to create something that could plausibly survive a civil suit.
American courts, understandably, are not eager to hold most newspapers liable for the things they print.
Authors have literary license to engage in odd or obscene matters, provided they can find a pervert with a solvent checking account. The problem arises when an author specifically and maliciously targets an individual, relates an offensive, plausibly fact-based story, and lies about it.
A 10-second interview garnered the information that Dick is not gay and has never had any kind of sexual encounter with Ferhatovic.
The obvious response to a possible suit lies in the fact that the encounter was an outlandish literary device. The United States Supreme Court, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, essentially declared that outlandish pieces are generally immune from actions arising out of the intentional affliction of emotional distress.
This piece, however, does not appear as an oh-so-clever parody. It is written with a number of hideously graphic details. It appears in concert with three other first-person pieces that intend to be taken seriously. Although the piece escapes reality, it lacks any disclaimer, something even Hustler Magazine had.
Instead, in describing the author, the publication states: "Denis Ferhatovic is a fourth-year English major whose support for war, unlike A. Prick's, is not bound up with a psychosexual desire to penetrate his enemies." This statement reveals a personal animus one normally does not see in anything calling itself a newsmagazine.
These problems do not mean that this author and his publisher are likely to lose a civil suit. Admittedly, most people possessing common sense would discern that this story was not to be taken as true.
Amazingly, given a range of editorial freedom that encompasses almost every imaginable idea or thought, these bright bulbs have managed to place themselves right next to a minute area of actionable conduct. Their conduct probably would not result in a successful verdict against them, but it is shameful nonetheless.
Assuming that the author and editors do not care about one opinion, I am left with a simple appeal to the sponsors of this publication: Consider what you are supporting. One may have the freedom to publish whatever one wishes, but others have the freedom to use common sense in avoiding it. The Declaration's advertisers may want to do likewise.
(Seth Wood's column appears
Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at swood@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | 3 days agoSuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | November 9, 2024The University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
