Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment.

When asked, most people would say they know what rights the First Amendment grants citizens of the United States. But I doubt few could recite it word for word. To be honest, I know I can’t.

In my office hangs a framed plaque of the First Amendment. Every day I look to my left, and there it is.

When I’m editing the day’s stories or reading someone’s column, it remains in my eyesight as a reminder. It also is the foremost thought in my mind when it comes to making decisions about content.

In past weeks, I have received Letters to the Editor about columns written by Daily Staff Writer and Columnist Chad Calek. Most readers argued that they were offended by the column and couldn’t understand why the editor of the Daily would publish such derogatory filth.

Calek, who is a columnist for the Daily’s Arts & Entertainment section, wrote his first column about his opinion of the Lilith Fair, others have been about the portrayal of women in the media and censorship.

From all my columnists I expect the same, that they discuss an issue and present a distinguishable point of view. This is the main reason why I run Calek’s columns.

People have different voices and ways that they express themselves, so who am I to tell a person what his or her voice should be?

I’m not denying that Calek’s columns and other things in the Daily that will run throughout the year will not be offensive to some members of the community.

However, in promoting the First Amendment I will not censure a person’s right to free speech because I may not agree with his or her opinion.

As editor in chief, I have a responsibility to look at things objectively from both sides. There are many of my columnists’ opinions that I do not agree with, but I refuse to censure their voices and viewpoints by not printing their work.

Like it or not, all of the Daily’s columnists speak for some percentage of the student body at ISU. If our opinion pages were filled with people who had the same views, it wouldn’t be realistic, and the average reader probably wouldn’t read it.

The Daily would not be serving the students of Iowa State University if it only wrote for one type of audience.

As with Freedom of Speech, I also believe in Freedom of Information — the public’s right to know.

This is one reason why excerpts from Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr’s 445-page report about the President Clinton scandal is featured in today’s paper.

The subject matter is explicit in some instances, but I feel that without providing the excerpts, most students wouldn’t take the time to look up the report on their own.

When it comes to a topic like the impeachment of the president of the United States, Freedom of Information takes precedent. Before citizens make a decision as to whether the president should be impeached, resign or stay in office, it is the responsibility of the media to provide the public with as much accurate information as possible to make that decision.

Some of that accurate information may be graphic, but it’s reality. News is reality. It’s not always pleasant, and I think the graphic sexual details in the report are not inappropriate for an adult, college audience.

Since the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal has been in the media for about seven months, people should have the right to know what happened during President Clinton’s grand jury testimony.

Although I am running a three-page layout devoted to excerpts from the Starr report, I’m sick of hearing about Clinton and how he and Monica played with cigars.

But once again, the public’s right to know exceeds my personal opinion of the whole scandal.

---

Tara Deering is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Des Moines. She is editor of the Daily.