The Undergraduate Students Association Council Election Board has already shown itself prone to misinterpreting its own code. But when a misinterpretation of that code is used to justify media censorship, it is dangerous and inexcusable.
On Monday, the USAC Election Board Chair Anthony Padilla warned presidential candidates that they could face sanctions if they participated in a segment on the Daily Bruin’s news and culture radio show, Long Story Short. The candidates, fearful of reprisal, withdrew from the interview.
Padilla cited a portion of the Election Code that requires the Election Board to approve any event that takes the form of a debate. That clause requires all candidates be allowed to participate and an Election Board representative to attend.
Applying that clause to The Bruin’s broadcast reporting is wholly misguided.
In the case of Monday’s planned interview, each candidate would have had a chance to answer questions regarding their candidacy separately. In a closely moderated setting, there would be nothing constituting a debate or even any on-air interactions between candidates.
But even if there had been an opportunity for candidates to interact, Padilla would still be in the wrong, using his authority over debates to intervene. His loose interpretation of the code would essentially prevent two candidates from being in the same room because there may be an opportunity for exchange.
But the fact that his actions limited the Bruin’s newsgathering operations pushes his reading of the code from simply absurd to actually detrimental.
The Election Board’s attempt to stand in the way of UCLA’s largest independent media outlet threatens to set a dangerous precedent. It even borders on infringement of basic principles of free speech.
In an email responding to The Bruin’s concerns about his actions, Padilla said the Election Board believes that the debate clause in the code “is meant to ensure an even playing field that allows all candidates’ voices to be heard – not just a select few that the media might decide to listen to.”
Not only did Padilla sidestep the fact that all three presidential candidates were invited to participate, but his language also clearly indicated a willingness to interfere with news coverage of the elections.
The Bruin filed a petition to the USAC Judicial Board Tuesday morning in order to set the record straight. We hope the Judicial Board takes a stand on behalf of independent media coverage.
Regardless, The Bruin will continue to do all it can to furnish the student body with consistent, timely and complete coverage of its student government elections.
“It even borders on infringement of basic principles of free speech.” No, it IS an infringement of basic principles of free speech. The ability of the electorate to be informed and educated, and for a healthy, democratic discourse to be established, is the cornerstone of everything this country stands for. Without basic free speech rights, nearly every other liberty we posses is meaningless. By interfering in the ability of the media to cover the elections process, Padilla has unquestionably violated the 1st amendment rights of both the candidates and the Daily Bruin.
As journalists, I’m sure that you are all familiar with the concept of prior restraint, which is censorship imposed on expression before the expression actually takes place. It is almost always unconstitutional, except in times of war or national security, for a governmental body to engage in prior restraint. The actions of the election board could have a dangerous chilling effect on media coverage of current and future USAC elections, as well as on the expression of the candidates, which is exactly the type of thing the “basic principles of free speech” enshrined in the 1st amendment are supposed to prevent. I applaud the efforts of the Daily Bruin editorial board in bringing this to light, and in filing a case which will hopefully reestablish the principles of liberty that should be fully respected in our elections process!