Thank you for your insightful comment Lauren and for standing up for free speech. While I, like many at Penn, do not agree with the ad, I love that we in America are free to speak our voices and have freedom of expression. In the vast majority of Arab countries, no newspaper (student or other) would ever dare to publish a paid advertisement such as the one we saw on Tuesday.

We sacrifice so much in the name of “free speech.” Alienating an already marginalized minority on campus? Besmirching the good name of the DP? Polarizing the community and making the discussion even harder to maintain?
If you believe preserving the free speech of a bigot is more important than any of this, please continue to publish anything to make a quick buck and call it “free speech.” I may not be Arab or Muslim, but as a person with principles I will not be reading your newspaper anymore. I hope others who feel the same will follow suit.

Thank you, too, for your advocacy of free speech. I can’t say I would have stopped reading The DP had you taken the opposite position (I try to make the statements in my comments seem true so that my opinions have more credence). I would have, however, been upset that another media source caved into political correctness.
Look, the ad may have been offensive to some people. I understand that. What I don’t understand is how a whole group of people could claim to hate offensive material so much that they’ll stop paying attention to news sources if it offends them. Instead, why not write an Op-Ed responding to the advertisement? Include other relavent facts that could help a reader make a decision. Horowitz’s ad didn’t change my opinion on the matter, but it made me research and re-consider certain things that I thought I knew (and I didn’t). Any informed person reading the DP (including a “marginalized minority” that feels offended or a person who feels offended on their behalf) should also think critically about the issue. Nothing wrong at all with that. We are on a college campus, after all.

A College Student,

You like every other individula who has written comments disparaging the ad have not pointed out one single item from the ad that is untrue.

The turth hurts, eh?

Although free speech is something to be maintained, the DP counts itself as an independent source of campus news, and it should not be advocating a position as bigoted as the Horowitz Center’s. Although advertising is not main content, allowing a full-page non-commercial ad that – while perhaps not crossing your definition of hate speech – is certainly discriminatory and prejudicial sends a strong message to readers that the DP supports these views.

Is that really the message the DP wants to send of itself to its readers?

The running of the Horowitz ad is more than an exercising of free speech or a form of revenue – it is giving the idea that all of Penn supports their ideas. If the DP wants to maintain any fantasy that it represents the Penn community, it should keep such bigotry out – even if it is someone else’s ad.

Late night @ Hillel House this thursday. Free speech, free Manischewitz.

“However, we do review their content prior to publication and can refuse to run them if we determine that they contain hate speech.
Ultimately, I deemed that this advertisement was within the bounds of appropriate political discourse and suitable for print.” -Lauren Plotnick

As mentioned in the article entitled “DP repeats prejudicial ad,” we question Lauren Plotnick’s ability to determine hate speech and her questionable understanding of deeming this advertisement as “within the bounds of appropriate political discourse and suitable for print.”

The 20th century Jewish philosopher, Hannah Arendt cautioned against the “banality of evil,” where ordinary people conform to dangerous mass social norms without critically analyzing the repercussions of their actions or lack thereof. Islamophobia, Arab/Palestinian bashing, and apologia towards Israel is so commonplace that many don’t think twice about questioning the content found in the Horowitz ad as being hateful and bigoted. Plotnick’s status quo and limited understanding of hate speech and/or appropriate political discourse is telling of the current state of critical thinking at an institution such as Penn.

Secondly, though the advertisements may not represent the DP’s views, Plotnick makes it very clear that all ads are reviewed for suitability and appropriateness. By publishing any ad that has undergone a selection process, the DP’s judgement of deeming something as “appropriate” or not, is a political judgement and an endorsement of its “appropriateness” and “suitability” of the ad. Again, Plotnick’s argument is devoid of nuanced critical insight and is evidence of a superficial understanding of the mechanics of journalistic politics and ethics.

Third, with the slew of violent crimes directed towards Muslim and Arab students across the U.S., the DP displayed irresponsible and dangerous judgement in publishing an ad in the wake of the 10th anniversary of 9/11. An ad that endangers the safety of Muslims, Arabs, those who resemble or associate with them, and even members of the Penn for Palestine society, should not have been published.

Finally, may the powers that be forbid a hate crime from happening on this campus, but if one does happen, legally the DP may be responsible for aiding or abetting the crime by publishing hate speech.

-Abbas Rattani.com