Defending the First Amendment…For Everyone

IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between — a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women’s final.

ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night — seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.

IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and —

McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.

IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there…

Within a week of these comments we Rutgers students flooded from buses toward a normally peaceful grassy knoll.   We stood in a massive semi-circle hoisting homemade signs in the air.  We raised our voices and pumped our fists in unison -protesting against racism and sexism.

A panel of speakers delivered impassioned speeches urging the student body to reject not only Imus’ statements, but all forms of racism and sexism in society.  Their words spread through the crowd like a strong breeze through a forest, lifting the heads and spirits of those that had been weighed down by Imus’ invective.

Tables lined the perimeter armed with the names, numbers, and addresses of the advertising companies that endorsed Imus.

We called.  We wrote.  We signed.  We made them accountable.

This controlled chaos, this organized moment of anarchy, was what I had waited for my entire college career.  Students, faculty, and administration of all genders, races, and ages joined together to fight this injustice.  Finally something mattered enough for us to shrug off the stereotypical apathy said to plague my generation – to gather together and make ourselves heard.

And heard we were.  Within the next week several of Imus’ advertising sponsors pulled their support from the on-air personality, fearing that too much of their core audience would link them to his deplorable remarks.  Following the televised protest he was suspended from the radio station, slapped with a lawsuit, and eventually forced to make an apology to the women’s basketball team.

During the months that this situation unfolded the words of passionate students, sympathetic editorials, and neutral news analysts flooded the Rutgers community. The First Amendment was under attack. Why was the government tolerating racist and sexist ideas?  Why couldn’t freedom of speech apply to just the “good” ideas?  Why couldn’t anyone just shut this guy up?

Let’s face it, the First Amendment is a dangerous and antagonistic concept.  It makes space for all ideas regardless of whether they are rooted in truth or falsehood.  Anyone with eyes, a mouth, or hands can announce their opinions to the world (much like this column) and very little recourse can be taken against them.  Or can it?  Despite the overwhelming desire to just shut a person up, it remains true that mere words – facts, information, debate – have more impact than a roll of duct tape ever will.

It is the protection of the right to express these ideas that improves the cultural conversation about the social politics of race, sex, religion, gender, tradition, and life.  So as frustrating and antagonistic and dangerous as it may seem, this amendment affords us the right to turn instances like the Imus debacle into teachable moments. Just as Imus was protected in expressing his prejudice, we were protected in rising up against it.

As a free and progressive society it is essential that we give all ideas, no matter how base or inflammatory, the opportunity to be expressed and challenged.  The amendment helps us question our core beliefs, search for our own definable truth, as well as dispel myths by seeking out the facts.  Unfortunately this process includes wading through the bigotry and prejudice of people like Don Imus.   Nevertheless you’ll also find that it provides you with rational thought, enlightenment, and intellect-based support for your thoughts.

The First Amendment may seem like a nuisance or a cheap soapbox for any “shock jock” looking for attention, but upon closer inspection you’ll see that it is so much more than that.  It’s a vehicle for enlightenment, a sound stage for justice, and often a creator of communities.

Gas price could fall below cost in N.J.

Published: Saturday, June 07, 2008

A bill allowing gas stations to sell gas below cost could ease pain at the pump but threaten small New Jersey businesses.Assemblyman John Burzichelli, D-Salem, Gloucester, Cumberland, guided the legislation through the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee on Thursday. It would eliminate gas price floors that require gas stations to sell above cost.

Enacted during the Great Depression, the regulations were originally intended to protect fuel sales from being monopolized by big business. Burzichelli said he no longer sees that as an issue.

“It is time for state gas pricing laws to catch up to speed with the times,” said Burzichelli. “New Jersey’s current law is a holdover from a time when consumers had few options as to where they could buy gas and monopolistic companies could manipulate prices to run roughshod over the marketplace. With the sheer number of choices available to motorists today, consumers should be able to decide for themselves the acceptable price of a fill-up.”

Some consumers agree. Sachin Ahuja, of Toms River, who was filling up at a Super Wawa in Egg Harbor Township, said that he is in favor of measures lowering gas prices. “Since gas is connected to everything, if gas prices go down, inflation will probably go down too,” he said.

However, small gas station owners see it differently.Ranjit Dhaliwal, owner of the Gulf on the White Horse Pike in Absecon for the past 19 years, is staunchly against the bill. “[Legislators] want to put small business out of business,” he said. He sees the convenience stores and repair shops of bigger businesses as a threat to small-station owners if the bill is approved.

“We are a gas-and-go, just a gas-and-go competing with Wawa, who sells under-cost and has stores inside.”

Dhaliwal’s concerns are not unfounded. Burzichelli noted that service stations with convenience stores or auto-repair shops make the bulk of their revenue from those more profitable services, not the sale of gasoline.

Returning from a four-month vacation, Krish Patel was unaware of the new legislation. The Mays Landing Lukoil gas station owner said that under the circumstances of the bill, his business would be “ruined”.

Relying on the sale of gas per gallon, Patel said soaring gas prices have hurt his business. Whereas he used to sell 180,000 to 200,000 gallons daily, today it is down to 150,000. With employee salaries, a mortgage and bill payments, Patel sees his future as bleak upon passage of the bill, “If they go below price, then I’m done and there’s nothing I can do about it,” he said.

Patel recalled a recent meeting he had with Lukoil corporation representatives that outlined their strategy as being pennies ahead of the competition while still maintaining their quality. Still, Patel is doubtful, saying that profiting at least 10-12 cents per gallon is the only way his business can survive. “With prices as they are, people are not looking for quality, they are looking for cheap,” he said.

Tanoia Davis, whose car was idling in a five-car line at the SAM’s Club pump in Pleasantville, found herself torn on the issue. “The big businesses seem to crush the little guy all the time, and I don’t want to see the little guy crushed,” said the Atlantic City resident. “But at the same time, I’m like any other consumer – I want reasonable gas prices.”

The Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee released the gas-cost bill 3-1 with one abstention. It now heads to the Assembly Speaker, who decides if and when to post it for a floor vote.

Dhaliwal says he has a better idea. He suggests the state impose a fixed minimum profit on gas similar to those on milk and cigarettes. Such a measure would yield businesses a 5-6 percent profit per each gallon sold.

He sees his suggestion as a good alternative legislators should take into consideration. “They should,” he said. “If small businesses are going to survive, the state has to do something.”