Illinois Students Were Right to Publish Cartoons

Freedom of press: An idea so important in American society that the Founding Fathers put it into the First Amendment.

So it seems that something has gone awry when two editors of the University of Illinois' student-run newspaper were suspended earlier this year for reprinting a few Danish cartoons. The school clearly stepped on their rights, and somewhere Ray Bradbury must be saying, "I told you so."

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten originally printed the cartoons (which feature the Muslim prophet Muhammad) in October 2005. Violence erupted in the Middle East, as it is considered blasphemous to Islamic people to depict the prophet.

Many think it was irresponsible and offensive for the editors from Illinois and the schools that followed suite to publish the cartoons.

The students, however, were simply acting on a right and a responsibility they possess as future journalists of America.

Most of the time when newspapers are punished for printing something, it is censorship (except in the case of malice, in which a media outlet intentionally defames someone). Censorship leads to an unspoken prior restraint, preventing the media from discussing certain themes.

Prior restraint is the worst enemy of the First Amendment, as it takes action to stop a media outlet before they report something.

While no one is saying that newspapers can't reprint the Muhammad cartoons, punishing these college students is as bad as prior restraint, as other papers now know what happens to those who try to push the boundaries.

And when the media are frightened to a point where they don't cover certain subjects, America loses out. It is a responsibility of journalists to report on issues that the public may not fully understand. By reprinting the cartoons, the two UI students tried to show their audience what the controversy was about.

After all, most Americans know the cartoons had sparked a riot in the Middle East, but a smaller percentage have actually seen them. Prior to their reprinting, the only way to see the cartoons was to search diligently online.

In hindsight, the students could have taken steps to prevent recoil from the public and school officials. After their suspension they stated that they were not trying to offend anyone. Perhaps that was a step that should have been taken beforehand.

The editors could have simply printed a brief paragraph with the cartoons stating their intent. This would most likely have calmed many of the confused and enraged readers. It would also have been a great courtesy to the Muslim students at their school, who had more right than anyone to be offended.

Still, such a paragraph is completely up to the digression of the paper. Requiring them to explain themselves is not far off from censorship or prior restraint.

There was no malicious intent when the two Illinois students ran these cartoons. They were simply trying to delve deeper into a topic with content that mainstream newspapers were afraid to touch.

While in some people's minds it was irresponsible to print this content, perhaps it is the professional journalists, who cowered in fear at the thought of upsetting a few people, who were truly irresponsible.