I spent most of my childhood, all of my teens, and the early part of my twenties being overweight. Despite dropping 65 pounds while in college, I continue to struggle with my weight and body acceptance issues on a daily basis.
Having been judged by my peers for being fat and knowing the extreme pain and torment harsh words, silent stares and hushed snickers cause, I make it a habit to keep my mouth shut when it comes to others’ weight.
So, was I offended this week when I read Maura Kelly’s blog post (that ignited a firestorm) for Marie Claire “Should “Fatties” Get a Room? (Even on TV?)?” Nope. Do I agree with her opinion? Not at all.
As of this writing, Kelly’s post has over 2,500 comments, hundreds of bloggers have written about her and the Today Show did a segment on the post (according to the show, both Kelly and Marie Claire Editor-in-Chief Joanna Coles declined to appear on the program).
Editors at Marie Claire have provided Kelly with a platform to engage readers, be snarky and draw visitors to the site, day after day. She’s doing a damn good job. Just about the entire Internet is talking about her and Marie Claire was a trending topic on Twitter.
I was surprised to hear that Coles and Kelly turned down an appearance on the Today Show. Both had released statements about the controversial post – why not take the opportunity to further explain what Marie Claire was trying to achieve with the piece that was sure to upset its primarily female audience. The biggest question I have is why did an editor assign a story about a television show to a writer who, according to Kelly’s post a) is “not much of a TV person” and b) never saw the CBS sitcom Mike & Molly? I’m left wondering more about the journalistic integrity of the magazine than Kelly’s issue with overweight people kissing or watching “a very, very fat person simply walk across a room.”
I’m glad Marie Claire is willing to publish controversial articles and doesn’t feel the need to overly censor its writers. I support Kelly and her right to voice her opinion under the First Amendment. Personally, I would rather disagree with someone than never hear his or her take.
And to all of the people who were offended by Kelly’s post, remember: “When people attack you, you always have to remember that a lot of what others say about you has a lot more to do with them than you.” – Hillary Rodham Clinton (Thanks to my colleague Lisa for posting this quote on her Facebook page.)
The First Amendment right to free speech is a right of the people not to be censored by the government. To have a First Amendment issue, you need a government actor. For example, the White House trying to stop a newspaper from publishing an anti-war article or even sensitive government information. There, the government is trying to suppress speech. That’s a First Amendment issue.
In this case, a privately owned magazine is being criticized by private citizens. People are disagreeing with the article and calling it hateful and disgraceful. No government actor, therefore no First Amendment issue.