Ever since the newspaper articles concerning legality came out, there had been talk about the case going to student court. Nobody seemed to sure who was doing what, but Erin O'Donnell said that she had talked with C.J. Cottle - the Supreme Justice for Student Court - and said that he was planning on contacting me. Weeks went by and I didnÍt hear anything, so I assumed that there was nothing to worry about.
A few weeks after that, though, the rumours started circulating again, so I telephoned C.J. myself and left a message asking that I be told whether or not there was a case against me, since I felt that I had a right to know. That was November 15.
On the night of December 5 I finally heard from him. He told me that yes, in fact, Jason Shanks (remember that name?) had brought a case forward to Student Court a few weeks previous. Why it had taken him so long to inform me about it, I couldn't figure out. We made an appointment for us to meet and discuss the case. On December 6 he gave me a twenty-five page document prepared by my opposition and said that I should read it over and prepare a fifteen to twenty minute defense for myself by December 10, as that's when the hearing would be. That's four days. Keep in mind that this was also at the end of the semester, and I had plenty of final papers and exams to worry about, plus at the time I was working on a new speech to give to Senate regarding the motion to rescind. C.J. told me that there had been council assigned to my case and that that person would be contacting me the next day to help me out, but that the responsibility of defending myself in court was mine (as Student Court did not allow professional lawyers to be present at hearings). The next day I received no phone calls from a council, nor did I ever hear from one for that matter.
On December 8 I spoke with Erin O'Donnell and told me that she had spoken with C.J. and that the case had been postponed while the court collected more information. She wasn't conveying this information to me officially, she was just telling me what she had heard.
On the night of December 9 - less than twenty-four hours before I was supposed to go before Student Court - C.J. called me and told me that it had been postponed. Luckily, I already knew that and so I didn't waste the weekend preparing a case, but I still felt that it conveyed extreme incompetence on his part. My opponents had all semester to work on a case. Student court looked it over for two or three weeks before letting me know. I had four days notice to defend myself.
But, of course, it all ended up working out okay... for the time being. However, the case is still pending, and so here are some of the documents that C.J. presented me with. I'm not sure if it's legal for me to be sharing this, but since they want to send me to jail forever anyway, I'm sure they won't mind.
Shanks v. Masturbation Society - opening statement
I would like to thank you for your time and consideration regarding the reversal of a Student Senate decision. This decision allowed "The Miami University Masturbation Society" to become an organization. Some years ago, Student Senate acquired the responsibility of recognizing who is to become an organization and also the funding decisions of these organizations. Student Senate is in effect representing Miami University when it comes to student organizations. Thus, this group is now sponsored and approved by Miami University. What was once a "Masturbation Society" has become a "Miami University Masturbation Society". There are many students as well as parents who are greatly opposed to the approval of this society not only here at Miami University, but throughout the state. I am writing this brief on their behalf. I desire to instill morals back onto this campus and back into our community. I have enclosed the October 24, 1995 student senate minutes as well as the constitution of the masturbation society. I have two main arguments that I would like the court to consider and which I intend to prove.
I. Prohibiting this organization from becoming sponsored and affiliated with Miami University in no way infringes upon Freedom of Speech or in this case Freedom of Expression. In fact, by prohibiting this organization the integrity and morals of Miami University are preserved and endagerment to students and faculty is prevented.
II. The Masturbation society breaks the student conduct regulations as outlined in Miami Universities student handbook as well as the Codified Ordinances of the city of Oxford. Masturbation in public is prohibited.
The spelling, grammatical, and capitalization errors are his, not mine. I'm intrigued by what seems to be his notion that "morals" can be legislated. I realize, of course, that they are regulated throughout much of the country, but he's not even pointing to any specific laws in his first argument, just the general morality of the thing as a whole. I'm flattered, however, that he seems to think I have enough power to be able to be a danger to students and faculty.
Shanks v. Masturbation Society - main arguments
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." -Schenck v. United States
In the past, freedom of speech and freedom of expression have been restricted. "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force," wrote Justice Oliver Wendal Holmes. There are other examples as well. Freedom of speech does not allow a person to tell lies that damage another's reputation. It does not allow a person to give speeches or write publications that would endanger the nation's peace and security. Libel, reckless or calculated lies, slander, misrepresentation, perjury, false advertising, obscenity and profanity, solicitation of crime and personal abuse or "fighting" words have all been prohibited in some form by the opinions of the courts. Basically, conduct that harms the public welfare is prohibited. The government has decided that freedom of speech and freedom of expression is not an absolute freedom. They have put controls on this freedom when it endangers individuals and the community. The first role of government is to protect its people. One way to protect the people is to preserve community standards of decency and morality.
Here on campus, student court is a part of that government. Student court is here to protect the people and to help preserve community standards of decency and morality. It has a moral obligation to the student body and the Miami community as a whole. Student court needs to repeal the approval of this organization. Some might argue that this sets a dangerous precedent, but when it concerns the endagerment of Miami University and its community, restricting one's expression is exactly the solution. Yes, Miami University and its community are in danger. The integrity of Miami is in jeopardy. MiamiÍs distinguished reputation is at stake. Will the alumni continue to give money to a university that supports such acts? Will parents sent there children to a school that has no moral values? Will enrollment decrease? Miami University is in danger and we have the ability and authority to help...before itÍs too late.
Now that we have examined freedom of expression when applied to clear and present danger we can advance to my second argument. The Miami University Masturbation Society breaks the student conduct regulations as stated in Miami Universities Student Handbook, and The Codified Ordinances of the city of Oxford. The constitution and bylaws of the masturbation society in which this organization is run and governed states in Article IV that, "The Miami University Masturbation Society will achieve its goals through many activities, some of which may include the following: 5. Masturbation sessions and contests (held in private, but open invitation)." Although held in private, but open to everybody, I would argue that this is still considered public. The masturbation society still violates the student conduct regulations. When an organization becomes approved, it then becomes a public organization. For example, student senate is held in private. Every Tuesday night around six p.m. senators get together for a meeting, held in private. They meet in a room on campus that is private, but anyone can attend. There is an open invitation. Student senate is public. It is held in private, but open to everyone. Student court hearings are also held in private, but are considered public. It would violate the student conduct regulations if a student were to masturbate in a student senate meeting or a student court hearing. The same logic applies to the many other Miami University approved organizations including the masturbation society. Although, the word "private" is used in their constitution, it still directly violates page 15 of the student handbook, "indecent conduct involves the following types of behaviors: publicly exposing oneÍs private parts or engaging in masturbation or sexual intercourse in public." This organization also violates the Oxford city Ordnance. Masturbation in public is prohibited and should not be condoned at Miami University!
In conclusion, Miami University is in danger. The morals and values of our society are being threatened. The standards society has set up are being challenged. Masturbation in public should not be condoned. The Miami University Masturbation Society breaks the guidelines set forth in MiamiÍs handbook and the Oxford city ordinances. Masturbation held in private but open to everyone is public. The student conduct regulations and the Oxford city ordinances should be upheld by repealing this organization. Public masturbation is prohibited. This organization should not be approved and sponsored by Miami University. An immediate reversal of student senate's October 24, 1995 decision is in order and necessary.
Do I really even need to say anything? First off, I don't consider myself to be a great writer by any stretch of the imagination, but the errors in this document boggle the mind, especially considering that he's holding this up as his official statement. I may be picky, but I tend to feel that anyone who makes grammatical errors such as using "there" instead of "their" should be kicked in the head.
Anyway, these arguments seem, to me, to be completely ridiculous. The opening paragraph about freedom of speech is almost copied verbatim from some essays I've seen written by Bob Dole. Shanks says that "[t]he first role of government is to protect its people." Fine. I can believe that. But the statement "One way to protect the people is to preserve community standards of decency and morality." is worded slightly incorrectly. I think it should be written as "One way to control and oppress the masses is to hold up 'community' standards of some arbitrary morality." Yes, I think that's more accurate. I do like, however, the associations he makes between MUMS and something that would endanger the nation's peace and security. Again, this fellow is giving me way too much credit.
He then goes on to say that Miami's "distinguished" reputation is at stake. I think he's been reading too many Miami brochures. His comments about decreased enrollment and the like are complete speculation and totally irrelevant, in my opinion.
He says that having masturbation sessions open to everyone is in violation because it would be illegal to masturbate at Student Senate. Wait, that doesn't sound right. Let me read his statement again. Yup, that's what he said. Unfortunately for him, the difference between a MUMS masturbation session and someone masturbating at Senate is that those attending a MUMS masturbation session would be realizing that that is what is going to happen. They would have the right to not attend if they didn't wish to. We would not force it upon them. Masturbation is not a part of student senate, and so, naturally, it would be inappropriate there. Plus, we never said that we would definitely have these sessions on Miami's campus. Mr. Shanks' logic is so completely based in something other than reality that it frightens me that some other people actually think he makes sense.
One of his arguments in his closing statement is that "[t]he standards society has set up are being challenged." He doesn't even really explain it, he just holds it up and assumes that we're going to think that that's a bad thing. I hope someone will eventually inform Mr. Shanks that we live in a democratic republic (well, as close to one as we can get, anyway). Although, I really don't hold his apparent political views against him. Just as I said we shouldn't be discriminated against because some of us might be anarchists, I shouldn't use Shanks' fascism against him. Luckily, there are plenty of other things to hold against him.
The above documents comprise the first part of Shanks' case against MUMS. He also included the minutes from the Senate meeting at which we were approved, a copy of our constitution, a copy of the Student Conduct Regulations that apply to the case, and copy of the pages of the Oxford City Ordinances that apply. The four gentlemen who wrote the article in the newspaper about how masturbation is a choice and should therefore not be condoned slightly expanded that essay and contributed to the case. By far the most amusing and absurd of the included documents, though, is the following one:
Shanks v. Masturbation Society: Assenting Opinion - by Michael S. Gray
Your Honors, I would like to thank you for your attention given to the matter on which I am about to address. I believe that the Miami University Masturbation Society is the epitome of the worst kind of immorality, the kind not which is clearly cut and dry and universally wrong, such as murder, but the kind in which certain people think they can and actually do (at least for the time being in this matter) get away with. It is the kind which is so awful that the vast majority of people could only have nightmares about it, yet through certain measures can be deemed not only tolerable but acceptable, as was the case when the Miami University Student Senate ruled that this organization be recognized as an official group on our campus. I believe that this group should be banned, and the foundation for my argument is comprised of several evidences.
First, on the national level, there are several Supreme Court precedents. In Roth v. United States (1957), the Court stated that "We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech and press." This ruling begs the obvious and crucial question: What is obscene? The answer came 16 years later in Miller v. California (1973), when the Chief Justice Warren Burger's Court came up with the following guidelines as to what could be termed obscene: "(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the purient [or lustful] interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Burger also gave "a few plain examples" of what could be considered obscene by individual states an/or localities: "(A) Patently offensive representation or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or stimulated. (B) Patently offensive representation or descriptions of masturbation excretory functions and lewd exhibition of the genitals."
There is another aspect of the consequences of this group's actions that should be focused on. It is my belief that this organization presents a clear and present danger to everyone who at the very least is directly involved with its activities. "The Court has held that 'obscenity is not protected expression and may be suppressed without a showing of the circumstances which lie behind the phrase "clear and present danger" in its application to protected speech.'" In Paris Adult Theater v. Slaton (1973), Burger stated that "Rights and interests 'other than those of the advocates are involved.' These include the interest of the public in the quality of life and the total community environment, ... and, possibly, the public safety itself." A practical application of where safety could in fact become an issue in the Ohio Revised Code in Section 715.32, Note 2- "Lewd and lascivious behavior, constitutional issues." "A municipal ordinance that mandates removal of doors from video viewing booths is a reasonable restrict ion on the time, place, and manner of speech that does not violate the First Amendment because it is narrowly tailored to eliminate 'carnal sexual activity in closed peep show booths' that the city has found contributes to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases including AIDS; the argument that 'adult' bookstore customers have a constitutional privacy right to view movies, videotapes, or live naked 'entertainment' in seclusion is rejected, since any protection offered by a constitutional right to privacy ceases when the locus of conduct shifts to a place of public accommodation." There is a very clear and very present danger imminent with each of this groupÍs meetings. Of page 32 of the Miami Student Handbook, in Appendix B, Paragraph 3, one of the obligations of the University "is to assure the safety of individuals..." And as the handbook states, "Actions defined as exceeding the limits of appropriate expression or peaceful demonstration and are in violation of University policy for individuals or groups" are, first and foremost, "Actions which endanger the safety and well-being of individuals."
I believe the Miami University Maturbation Society represents a "substantive evil;" it tarnishes, more than that, it destroys the soul and core of values that is supposed to be fostered on this campus by the administration. I pray, Your Honors, that you will be responsible to your obligation of doing your part and duty to adhere to the regulations and morals set forth in the Miami Bulletin; I pray that you overturn the Student SenateÍs decision to sponsor and recognize this organization on campus. Thank you.
Not just the worst kind of immorality, mind you, but the epitome of the worst kind of immorality. I'm a big fan of irony, and this letter more than satisfies my need; he talks long and hard about obscenity, when his very essay is one of the more obscene documents I've read in a long while. I should mention that I didn't change the formatting of his letter. All bolds, italics, and underlines are his. And, yes, you read right; he did say that the Masturbation Society will spread AIDS. As to what he's using as precedence, the most recent case cited is twenty-two years old. The first one he cites is from 1957, around the same time that suspected socialists were blacklisted, the general public was led to believe that we could survive and win total nuclear annihilation, and non-whites weren't really considered humans. His other favourite date is 1973, which was near the end of an era plagued by Vietnam, the Stonewall riots, Watergate, secret Cambodian bombings, and the four students shot dead by the National Guard just outside of the School of Architecture building in a mid-sized Ohio university.
Shanks also included a few newspaper articles in his case, which, again, satisfied my need for irony, as one of the articles was the one that said "Don't you people have anything better to do?"
I'm still not quite sure what to think of the student court case yet. It seems obvious to me that the charges brought against me are ridiculous and not based in reality. Such subjective a term as morals have no place being discussed and defined in Student Court, and the whole bit about breaking various ordinances can't hold up because, as I said before, we haven't done anything. Student Court does have the ability to revoke recognition of a student organization, but I'm fairly certain that they will rule on my side, especially since I now have a bit more time to prepare.
The part that worries me, though, is that this case brings up so many other issues, such as obscenity, defining morality, freedom of speech and expression, regulating sexual behaviour, and so forth. One of their earlier complaints was that MUMS was a joke, but because of them it's far from that any more.
