2008 Woodie Awards
Illini Media
WPGU
buzz
Illio
TechnographRamadan, free speech and DailyIllini.com
By The Daily Illini Editorial Board
Posted: 9/17/07 Section: Editorials
Last Thursday, this page featured a guest column about the start of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month. The column itself was a benign message highlighting the virtues of a religion shared by a significant portion of the University population that unfortunately, has been subjected to misrepresentation, hatred and downright ignorance. During the weekend, the column, as it appears on DailyIllini.com, was flooded with comments ranging from the reasoned and informed to the vile and unconscionable.
Even though it's a sad reflection on what is hopefully a small minority of our readership, in our experience, that's just the way it goes.
We instituted online commenting last year because the Internet is now the fastest way readers, writers and editors can interact about the content and relevancy of columns, editorials and hard news stories. Like most new technological endeavors, it certainly has its weaknesses.
We've found that anonymity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows people to remove personal filters that inhibit honest debate. But on the other hand, the filters they remove are sometimes the ones between their brain and their typing fingers.
We moderate comments that we feel are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language. For the most part, our online readers adhere to these standards. Those that don't find their comments removed as quickly as possible. But the problem that's inherent in any standard of conduct is where to place it.
In the case of a comment which doesn't involve verifiable claims or copyrighted material, the question we ask ourselves is whether it has substance or not. While this is not a particularly nuanced determination, it is one that can be applied without deference to any particular political, cultural, or in this case, religious ideology.
There is no one-size-fits-all method of deciding what is acceptable speech. We believe that in cases such as last week's column, more speech is the way for readers to understand and form opinions on such issues.
While we wish that we could temper the anger that sometimes accompanies controversies such as this, we don't view them as regrettable situations. We view them as opportunities.
We encourage readers to let us (and each other) know how they feel about the events of the day. If someone's opinion runs contrary to yours, send us your thoughts instead of calling for theirs to be silenced.
It may be blunt, but the price we pay for living in a free society with a free press is that sometimes feelings get hurt.
But like our parents taught us, we need to talk about our feelings for things to get better.
Even though it's a sad reflection on what is hopefully a small minority of our readership, in our experience, that's just the way it goes.
We instituted online commenting last year because the Internet is now the fastest way readers, writers and editors can interact about the content and relevancy of columns, editorials and hard news stories. Like most new technological endeavors, it certainly has its weaknesses.
We've found that anonymity is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows people to remove personal filters that inhibit honest debate. But on the other hand, the filters they remove are sometimes the ones between their brain and their typing fingers.
We moderate comments that we feel are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language. For the most part, our online readers adhere to these standards. Those that don't find their comments removed as quickly as possible. But the problem that's inherent in any standard of conduct is where to place it.
In the case of a comment which doesn't involve verifiable claims or copyrighted material, the question we ask ourselves is whether it has substance or not. While this is not a particularly nuanced determination, it is one that can be applied without deference to any particular political, cultural, or in this case, religious ideology.
There is no one-size-fits-all method of deciding what is acceptable speech. We believe that in cases such as last week's column, more speech is the way for readers to understand and form opinions on such issues.
While we wish that we could temper the anger that sometimes accompanies controversies such as this, we don't view them as regrettable situations. We view them as opportunities.
We encourage readers to let us (and each other) know how they feel about the events of the day. If someone's opinion runs contrary to yours, send us your thoughts instead of calling for theirs to be silenced.
It may be blunt, but the price we pay for living in a free society with a free press is that sometimes feelings get hurt.
But like our parents taught us, we need to talk about our feelings for things to get better.
The Daily Illini encourages on-topic discussion through article commenting on its articles and blogs. It is our policy not to delete any comments based upon political or ideological point of view. However, we reserve the right to remove comments that are abusive, off-topic or use excessive foul language.
The posting of copyrighted material, including any and all content for which you are not the author, is illegal under Federal intellectual property laws. Such activity will not be tolerated. Comments containing copyrighted material will be removed, and continued violation of copyright law is grounds for being banned completely from commenting on DailyIllini.com.
If you feel any post meets these conditions or merits review, please e-mail our editors at meonline@dailyillini.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 17
Adam
posted 9/17/07 @ 2:09 AM CST
Thank you, Daily Illini for clarifying your stance. I agree, let people talk these things out.
What I don't understand is why my posts were no longer showing up, but those of Islamophobes were. (Continued…)
Country Girl
posted 9/17/07 @ 1:52 PM CST
Dear Adam, I have read last Thursday's exchange. You behaved very politely and calmly, and that was very nice of you. You have not convinced me of your positions, but I appreciated your attempting to make your points in a dignified manner. (Continued…)
akibare
posted 9/17/07 @ 3:38 PM CST
If you're a secular feminist then surely you realize that the more conservative or observant wings of the other "religions of the book" have similar restrictions on women. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 9/17/07 @ 10:38 PM CST
Dear Country Girl,
First a clarification: I did not reference the term "Islamophobe" in a derogatory way. I just used it matter-of-factly. That shouldn't be a problem, should it? And in light of its widespread use, how is it made up? If you can convince me that it is, then I apologize, and I seek to exchange it for "those who criticize Islam" - I am not so concerned with semantics. (Continued…)
Country Girl
posted 9/17/07 @ 11:30 PM CST
Akibare, I will not contest that extreme conservatism is not limited exclusively to hardcore Islam. However, the degree of domination, abuse, control, violence that the woman must often endure, not from some isolated sociopath, but as a matter of "cultural expectation," is simply at a different level of intensity and severity than your counterexamples. (Continued…)
Country Girl
posted 9/18/07 @ 12:34 AM CST
Adam, I wish you were right about the impact of feminism in Muslim countries and/or communities. Time will tell.
"For example, you talked about honor killings. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 9/20/07 @ 2:36 AM CST
Country Girl,
I am sorry for the delay. I'm actually in a rush, so let me just say:
Actually the question is, Which scholar supports Honor Killings? I could list every scholar I've ever known, and they all, without exception, oppose honor killings. (Continued…)
Country Girl
posted 9/20/07 @ 2:07 PM CST
Hi, Adam,
"by saying that Muslim countries have had a rough transition into modernity, I should have noted that it is a transition that has not been completed in some places. (Continued…)
Adam
posted 9/21/07 @ 1:57 AM CST
Dear Country Girl,
When we speak of countries that have made it into modernity, we have to be careful how we think of this, or else even the US won't count. (Continued…)
Country Girl
posted 9/21/07 @ 8:43 AM CST
OK, Adam, so basically we have no fatwas against honor killings from Islamic scholars known and respected in the countries/communities these barbaric deeds actually happen. (Continued…)
Post a Comment