I had sort of hoped that the Herald would have a little more time before a content-based controversy hit the paper.

In some ways, it hasn’t happened yet. Even when the registration issue of the paper included an anti-abortion insert, which was criticized for dubious claims, the Herald received only a letter to the editor decrying the paper for including the advert.

It’s something the Herald has run before, and advertising is almost entirely a business decision; as long as they pay the money, they can say what they want. While there are obviously limits to that philosophy, as I experienced first-hand, the paper has generally let advertisements pass through regardless of their argument or content. The paper’s libertarian streak has been quite consistent, for better and worse, in that regard.

The paper’s own content, however, is a different matter.

There are always cases where LTEs are disposed of because of their rambling, racist content and where columns are held back because of incorrect or inflammatory commentary. And then there are times when “playing it safe” goes wrong. One of the most notable incidents happened more than a decade ago, when the Herald Editorial Board apologized for a comic it ran that was deemed offensive to some people of color.

The comic featured a black student lobbing criticism at noted Affirmative Action opponent Ward Connerly as his desk chair is turned away from view. The final panel shows the student left stammering when it’s revealed that Connerly is black himself. An opinion editor later recanted on the decision, wrote a column explaining her decision and was subsequently let go from the paper.

Managing free speech in the paper is a notoriously tricky balancing act. The paper had tests, albeit on a smaller scale, this week. Both decisions ultimately held content out of the paper. One of those attempts was a success, while another faltered.

This week the Herald published a column from Justin Kramer that made the claim radical Islam is a “disease of the mind” and suggested it is inherently more violent than Christianity.
These arguments aren’t new and were part of a Point-Counterpoint with columnist Meher Ahmad, who spoke from the perspective of growing up in a Muslim family.

But had editors not stepped in, that column would have certainly provoked a lot more than five comments. It doesn’t do anyone a service to repeat the additional language Kramer used to describe the protesters and Muhammad, except to say that it was, in my opinion, vile, vitriolic and almost rabid in its use of invective toward “radical” Muslims and the Prophet in general.

Kramer, when I asked him about the column, said he intended to be inflammatory in his comments as a way of making a point about the value of free speech, even when it’s entirely objectionable.

“Freedom of speech takes tough stomachs to digest, and even though I don’t agree with chants such as “God Hates Fags”, I will defend their right to say it,” Kramer wrote in response, referring to members of the Westboro Baptist Church. “And if an LGBT group attempted to violently put an end to it, I’d mock them as well to spite their attempts and demonstrate, yet again, that violence will not be rewarded and free speech will be preserved.”

There is a way to make that argument, but it doesn’t include mimicking the garbage coming out of their mouths. Had Kramer been eloquent in his responses to me rather than resorting to the debased rhetoric originally in his column, I’d be writing about something else right now.

Editors pared down his column to preserve his original argument without the outrageous language and have sat down and explained why his approach was unacceptable. The editors could have taken the approach of avoiding the issue altogether, but instead, presented a timely topic in a thoughtful way and saved the public and themselves a lot of trouble by holding baseless attacks at the door.

That cautious approach, however, isn’t always necessary and runs the risk of being a bit heavy handed. The Rocky the Raccoon comic in the lower right hand corner of the Sept. 11 issue was hardly topical, comparing Prometheus giving fire to human beings to bartenders being given ice. Originally, however, the comic was a slightly risky joke.

It read, verbatim: “[INSERT 9/11 JOKE HERE] (Too soon?)”

That comic was cut by Managing Editor Taylor Nye. When asked about the cut, she argued it “was too soon.” Nye said the author pointed out “that people like me, who can’t joke about 9/11, are the butt of the joke since it pokes fun of the tragedy + time = acceptability equation. However, I absolutely feel I made the right decision.”

As I said before, since it’s the comics page, it is pretty low stakes. Editors have pulled comics from the page, when there was far more objectionable content than is present these days. A certain comic that targeted frat boys and suggested they were hypocritical homophobes was one of the early signs that the page needed more monitoring. Some people would say that nothing is sacred in comedy, but it differs a bit in a newspaper. Even in a college newspaper, you’re probably not going to print a fully fleshed out “The Aristocrats” joke, right?

But this is pretty small stuff. There wasn’t actually a joke made about 9/11 except that you can’t really joke about 9/11. What’s worse is that the page actually included the same essential joke throughout the page. Comics editor Noah Yuenkel changes the header of the page every day. On Sept. 11, it read: “Carefully Shying Away from 9/11 Jokes.” The joke was even embedded in the Sudoku difficulty rating (“One Star: Nothing but mourning and memorials here, move along, move along”) and the Kakoru difficulty rating (“You hear the one about [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]”?) So not only was the comic pulled based on a rather thin justification of “sensitivity,” but the definition of sensitivity wasn’t even consistent. Such a move makes me worry about what other content might be pulled based on its potential to offend.

The line has to be drawn at the threshold of legitimate commentary. Every piece of content produced in the Herald, with the notable exception of Shout Outs, can carry its own legitimacy. Even comments designed to offend can carry pieces of satire, parody or criticism that justifies their inclusion in the paper. (Shout Outs can be cut at will, as far as I’m concerned, since they’re produced by readers, have no real context and are available online anyway.) Comics are entertainment, but they are also occasionally vehicles for social commentary. While the comic in question may have been a rather thin example of social commentary, the explanation of the joke given by the author should have been enough to allow it to go through.

Jason Smathers ([email protected]) is a reporter for WisPolitics.com. He was also the editor of The Badger Herald from 2009-2010.