*****
As a member of the national network of First Amendment Schools, the Stevens School takes interest in the current controversy with the new Burton Boards’ graphics on their snowboards. The corporation contends that the images of nude women and self-mutilation fall under the protection of free artistic expression. It would be good to remind them that the First Amendment guarantees protection from governmental intrusion on free expression, not on the public’s rejection of images it deems objectionable. Further, it is important to remember that, in exchange for the protections on individual liberties, there exists an exchange. The governed must uphold a commitment to protecting and promoting the common good.
If Burton wishes to continue the argument of free expression, it is then important to examine the decisions of the courts with regard to the limits of free expression and the common good. First Amendment protections for obscenity and pornography have limited themselves to images entertained by adults. In Miller v California, 1973, the Court set guidelines to consider when determining what constitutes obscenity and pornography. These include:
- Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
- Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
In another First Amendment case, Chaplinsky v New Hamphsire, the court said that “obscene . . . words . . . are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.”
I would suggest that the above standards make clear that the images of naked Playboy Bunnies, cut hands dripping with blood and burn marks representing self-mutilation on a snowboard, in no way elevate public discourse or civic concern for the welfare of the common good. Indeed, Burton’s statement on a web page reinforces their desire merely to shock: “Board art has long been cutting edge, RAW and off the cuff . . . always in your face.” We must ask, “In our face for what?” What is the political or artistic value that is promoted? And if we have to ask then your point has not been adequately made.
Surely, the adult members of the corporation are aware that self-mutilation is a pathology that is harming too many of our young people. Surely the adult members are aware of the connection between violence against women and the objectification of the female image.
That the snowboards are purchased by consumers over the age of eighteen does not adequately respond to the concerns of the community at large. The boards will find their way to the slopes. The cross-over from the adult world to the children’s world changes the dynamic of the “free expression” argument to one that must address the responsibility to those in the larger community who will forced to view them. Schools across the state participating in ski programs sponsored for elementary students risk exposing children to images that they are not equipped to view.
In deciding Tinker v des Moines, another First Amendment case, the Court said that “students do not shed their Constitutional rights at the school door.” Equally, corporations do not shed their responsibilities to the communities in which they live and operate.
We hope that a comprehensive public discussion will ensue in the upcoming weeks. We need to hear from the managements of the ski resorts who sponsor the school ski days during the winter. We would want to be assured that our students participate in a program that understands its responsibilities toward safeguarding our younger generations. We are all responsible for the protection of our nation’s children, for building citizens for the future. One of the marks of maturity is to control impulses that gratify only ourselves, to make reasoned decisions that consider the consequences of our actions and to consider the implications of our actions.
There is a greater good and Burton has chosen to relinquish its responsibilities to that greater good.
