I have admired Ashley Judd for years...not because she is from
Kentucky, or a UK grad, or a BBN supporter, not even for her good looks
and acting talent, but because she came from modest circumstances and
has truly made something of herself, while giving back to her home, her
country—and even on the international level where she is a activist
working to end AIDS and human trafficking for various UN and other
agencies.
So, it came as something of a shock when she spoke recently at UK
and barred radio & tv stations from covering her address. To my
knowledge she had never imposed such a ban in her several previous talks
at UK. Why would she now impose such a ban, and why would UK even agree
to it???
Several weeks of digging leave me very unsatisfied...but UK says
its PR people received this request from her representatives, not Judd
herself. Surprisingly, for people in the media relations business, they
didn’t ask why? So we don’t know why someone whose career has been
promoted by all the media, both at home in Kentucky and around the
world, would try to cut out some of the media, especially TV, from
covering an important step in her career.
Even more, why would UK agree to such a ban? It can’t help its
relations with local media, and, IMHO, it is probably illegal. I have
some memories, which at my age should be treated carefully, that there
are some court cases that say a PUBLIC institution may not bar any of
the media from covering a PUBLIC event, which this was, without
violating the First Amendment. I have been googling this, but so far
haven’t come up with anything definitive.
Private schools may be different, so are private individuals...but
she is not. She is a “public person” as the courts have defined in
previous cases.
So I am left puzzled...as I am on other points-- why would UK say it
would go along? I think it needs to answer this to Kentuckians, and to
local media. Why would Ashley Judd even ask for it? I think she, not her
representatives, need to answer this question also.
Even more, why have local media not protested? That includes the
Herald-Leader, which as students were, was allowed to record her talk
“for note taking purposes only.” What’s the difference from that (which
print reporters learned long ago---from broadcasters---was important for
getting a better and more accurate story) and letting radio reporters
actually cover her talk? BTW, the H-L has a “news partner,” a local TV
station, so why not object and uphold the First Amendment? The silence
from local media is deafening ...as it has been from the local chapter
of the SPJ—the Society of Professional Journalists. Maybe they don’t
think her one fall from grace is important. Time magazine would
disagree; it named her as one of its “persons” of the year for her work
in bringing out sexual harassment claims, and bringing down a group of
alleged perpetrators.
Once anyone gets away with such bans, which I do believe violates
the First Amendment, other violations become that much easier—and we are
all the losers here. Let’s hope, on her next visit to UK, she has a
better view of our history—as she works to improve America, and the
world.
And let’s hope all the local media live up to their responsibilities to that First Amendment as well.
I'm just sayin'...