Because of recent events, specifically The Badger Herald allowing an online ad to run that links to a website denying the Holocaust, I want to take the opportunity to make clear The Daily Cardinal's advertising policies.
Both our editorial and business staff reserves the right to reject any advertisement that we deem either libelous or offensive. However, this policy allows for a wide range of discretion by our staff, and it is up to our judgment whether an ad crosses the line from being provocative to being completely misleading.
As an example, I would allow an ad to run that features either very graphic or descriptive content dealing with a sensitive topic like abortion, no matter which side of the debate the ad fell on. I believe such ads differ considerably from one depicting the Holocaust as false, because questions regarding abortion are part of an ongoing debate in this country, with potentially persuasive arguments articulated either way by a wide spectrum of people. A Holocaust denial ad represents a gross misrepresentation of historical fact in a way that does not contribute to the so-called ""marketplace of ideas"" in a meaningful way.
Let me be clear: I do think Bradley Smith, the man behind the ad who has recently been spamming university students with his distorted, warped worldview, has a right to speak. He can speak on the steps of the Capitol, he can shout himself hoarse on Library Mall and that is his right. However, I am under no obligation to give him a platform to speak, just like I am under no obligation to give space to anyone else who wants to perpetuate irrefutably wrong information. I do not think this limits a person's right to speak, but recognizes that when accepting a paid advertisement it goes beyond respecting free speech and can turn into actively facilitating a blatantly offensive agenda. There is a substantial difference between letting someone speak and giving them a megaphone.
The same policy applies to our online comments section. Although we do allow anonymous comments and will continue to do so, some comments are immediately flagged for profanity and other keywords. Myself, our web director and other staffers monitor the comments each day to be on the lookout for aggressively offensive comments. We would not allow threats of violence or defamation of character, nor broad hate speech that seeks to indict entire groups of people.
Again, we strive to allow a broad range of opinions and views, even if those views may be controversial or sometimes hurtful, but we do reserve the right to take down any comment we feel crosses over into belligerence beyond the scope of common decency.
I believe The Daily Cardinal must maintain its standards in terms of deciding what is controversial and still a worthwhile topic of intellectual debate and what represents baseless attacks on a group of people. I am not advocating for only running ads or articles that are inoffensive, as a definite purpose of journalism is to challenge accepted norms and sometimes offend when necessary. However, that comes with a responsibility to our readers, staff and the larger campus community that as a newspaper we offend when it is in the best interest of the university and in pursuit of the truth. To treat that responsibility lightly would be a disservice to our integrity and our mission to serve the campus to the best of our abilities.
Charles Brace is a senior majoring in English and political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
