Well, finally someone in the U.S. who claims to support free speech is actually supporting freedom of speech. The Daily Illini has printed the "offensive" cartoons. And yes, there's reaction all over the place.

You can follow the news updates on the beehive of activity that this horrid act of offensiveness has generated. They're making national headlines rather quickly -- and I think the other, larger newspaper suddenly have egg on their face.

As might be expected, the Chancellor of the school is disappointed. Wah. And you know what? I bet if his letter looked like this one, in response to the newspaper publishing pornographic stories, no one would be surprised (be sure to read his response linked above, this is his letter with some satirical modifications):

I was excited to see that the Daily Illini elected to highlight on its editorial page a collection of the perverse cartoons and raw, homosexual acts that have so offended Christians around the world. I do not find the cartoons personally offensive and so would never have taken the position of numerous respected news organizations in America--including The Washington Times--and censored them. I'm not sure that the DI could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons' publication in Denmark without publishing them, so I applaud their efforts. It just isn't possible, for instance, to editorialize about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures.

The right of free speech and a free press are core values in American society, and I believe in them wholeheartedly. That is why the right to publish incendiary material means a publication must publish that incendiary material -- the public has a right to know. Editors and journalists have forever struggled with balancing the good that publishing a story will do for the public versus the harm it might cause. I believe the DI editors could not have found another way to meet their responsibility to inform the public, even by giving readers a web link to cartoons, as one news organization has done.

It is the DI's right to publish what its editors believe to be news. The DI is not a University-owned publication, and I would not want it to be. The DI is a real-world institution, and I only hope that its editors always seriously consider the real-world impact their decisions have on their many diverse readers and their community.

That said, I believe that the appropriate response to free speech that offends us is more free speech. As British philosopher John Milton said about truth in 1644, "Let her and Falsehood grapple: who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?"

Speech alone is our weapon. Expression is our right. When viewpoints are debated openly and civilly, truth will eventually emerge. I am sure that the DI's decision to publish will stir considerable debate. Although I strongly agree with the DI's decision, I am confident that we as individuals and as a university will always be made wiser and stronger by debate.

Sincerely,

Not Richard Herman

Chancellor

Be sure to support those who the muslims are attacking: Buy Danish!

Posted by: Ogre at 11:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 4 kb.