Dear Editor,
Why are private businesses being vilified for not printing material they feel is objectionable? Just because the Koala is exercising its freedom of speech doesn’t mean a specific printer must print it. The Koala can take its business elsewhere if it wants to print material that its current printer finds objectionable.
Regarding the content in question, if you object to wasting money on a statue (which I think is the point of the “protected speech”) you can express it without taking an image out of a pornographic movie. Why does the Koala have to appeal to the lowest common denominator? All I saw was racism, sexism, pornography and general crudity. Are these the things we want to expose ourselves to as people who are trying to better ourselves through higher education?
— Micha Adler
Graduate student, Physics Department
