The University of Maine student newspaper since 1875
About Us
Contact Us
Staff
E-mail Edition
home
News
Opinion
Style
Sports
Archives
Print Edition
Last updated: Thursday, Feb. 9, 1:34 a.m.
Opinion | Readers Speak

Letters: Kennedy, Facebook and your right to free speech

Posted on Sept. 14, 2009, at 12:59 a.m.

Kennedy’s FairPoint connection ‘appaling’

To the editors:

I am appalled by the story in the Sept. 10 edition of The Maine Campus about University of Maine President Robert Kennedy’s position on the board for FairPoint Communications.

The University of Maine community is facing more staff cuts, a faculty hiring freeze and low enrollments. Some students cannot continue with school due to lack of funding, and those who have been lucky enough to return are struggling to simply pay for books. In addition, a committee has recently been convened to determine which programs should be cut, which will put more educational opportunities out of reach for our students and cut more jobs.

Yes, other university presidents hold similar positions on corporate boards, but this does not make it right or appropriate. Some actually give their earnings back to their community. Yes, we also need to remain attractive to industry, but why are we allying ourselves with a communications company that is so poorly regarded? Not to mention being under investigation by regulators in several states? With the amount of money Kennedy is currently receiving for his participation on FairPoint’s board, he could fund several staff salaries, endow a faculty chair, make a significant contribution to the library for much needed books and electronic resources, sponsor the arts or establish a scholarship fund.

As an alumna of UMaine and a current graduate student, I am seriously disappointed in what I perceive as Kennedy’s lack of commitment, vision and support of what we are here for: education. The students, faculty who teach them and the staff who make our university function are the future we need to focus on in these tough times, not catering to the promises of corporations.

- Lisa Nielson
Doctoral student

Facebook has right to delete “I hate The Maine Edge”

To the editors:

In Thursday’s edition, Eryk Salvaggio wrote an editorial about Facebook reprimanding him for something as simple as creating a group devoted to hating The Maine Edge. The act was relatively innocuous, and let’s be honest, I think most people hate the Maine Edge. Eryk was standing up for the most-quoted part of the most-referenced amendment in the U.S. Constitution. While I agree with Eryk’s position that free speech means being able to express like and dislike equally, that really has no place in the argument.

The fact is that Facebook is a private enterprise, and can do as it pleases. If we don’t like the way it does business, we are totally free to go back to MySpace or even start our own online network. The idea that Facebook should somehow be legally obligated to allow whatever we want to post would be a violation of Facebook’s own rights as a private group. If Facebook wanted to disable every account of brown-eyed people, they’d be completely within their rights, because it’s a private networking Web site. If we don’t like it, we have plenty of other options.
Furthermore, Eryk goes on to say that Facebook has grown too powerful: “If you mess with Facebook, you don’t just lose access to a Web Site, but to pieces of your personal history and connections to your friends and family. It is too much power for a site to have.”

Does Facebook have the power to separate you from your friends and family? The short answer is “no.” The long answer is, “No, that’s stupid.” Facebook can’t control you phone, your car, your mail, your e-mail or what you do with the rest of the Internet. Facebook is not our only connection to our families or our personal histories. Facebook makes it easier to communicate with our friends and family.

Eryk’s final words concern me the most. “It is too much power for a site to have.” Facebook has grown, but what power does it have that we haven’t given it? Granted, it’s creepy that Facebook knows where my long-lost high school buds are before I do, but Facebook is only able to make that connection because I gave it the information to make the connections.

In the end, the editorial sounded less like a trumpet for free speech and more like a kid upset about being slapped on the wrist.

- Joey Pelletier
Senior English student

Campus Currents: , ,

This entry was posted on Monday, September 14th, 2009, 12:59 am. You can follow any responses to this article through the RSS feed.

«
»
  • Eryk Salvaggio

    To Joey Pelletier:
    Thanks for the response and for taking the time to think critically about my column.

    For the record, my column never asked for a legal requirement for Facebook to respect free speech. In fact, I noted that it isn’t legally obligated to do so. My column was simply urging people to reconsider what they give Facebook access to in their lives, given that the site has already shown that it has a shady side. On that point, I think we’re in agreement.

  • Ryan Page

    The response to Eryk’s article was interesting. It appeared to me that problem was not whether facebook, could or could not remove pages at their discretion, but if they should be able to. Assuming that just because a corporation is a private entity means they have no responsibility they have no responsibility to their users seems dangerous.

    The “love it, or leave it” mentality ignores the possibility of change. Facebook itself has shown that it will listen to it’s users when they speak up, and I think a backlash from the company over-extending their power is probably a good thing. Especially if it is using that power to protect businesses in place of the free speech of its users.

    I think this response echoes the qualms of the original article, but might not understand it yet. Facebook has the power we surrender to it, and the amount we’ve surrendered is frightening.