If the BH’s policy is not to accept obscene ads, why did they accept an ad for a Holocaust denial site? Few things are more obscene than that.

I am happy to see that the view of the academic leaders and journalism professionals at UW was that the editor’s decision to print the ad was a mistake. After all the feedback and campus enlightenment on the subject, I don’t understand why the editor didn’t remove the ad immediately. Mr. Smathers, I hope you decide to remove the ad today, not on March 17, which will allow 2 more weeks of hated and lies to be spread around the world by the UW Badger Herald. Stopping the ad is is the ethical thing to do. In the long and short run it will be good for your integrity as a journalist, show strength and a sign of growth as a professional, and make you a more humble and compassionate human being.

Badger Herald staff�thanks for being a bunch of grandstanding, falsely self-righteous morons. This is just like when you ran those offensive Islamic cartoons several years ago; You claimed you were doing it in the interest of the First Amendment, but you were really just trying to draw attention to yourself, like a child who shouts obscenities at the top of their lungs.

A query�if the Herald values free speech and anonymous commenting so highly, will this comment be posted?

�I believe that what we did was the ethical decision,� Smathers said. �I have a very strong belief in the rationality of this campus community.�

Smathers “strong belief” was obviously strongly wrong. A substantial number of the comments were cruel and anything but rational.

I wonder if Smathers still believes in what he said above. If so it appears he believes those who deny the Holocaust are rational beings.

One of my takes on all that has happened is that Smathers’ decision created a public forum for Holocaust deniers to spread their cruel lies. If nothing else it seems Smathers should apologize for the hurt done by making the decision he made. That would go a long way toward cleaning up his image and would also just be a decent, kind thing to do after all the anger and pain his decision resulted in.

I understand that the Holocaust was a tragedy beyond measure and I recognize the concern behind this, but I don’t understand why hosting a speaker who is critical of Islam and whose views could be considered harmful to the Islamic community are considered “distinguished”. I think that inviting those who are Holocaust deniers into an academic realm, debating and disproving them would be much more effective and meaningful than this controversy.

How was Prof. Downs not put on this panel? He’s a First Amendment expert and a big defender of free speech; seems odd to leave him off.

“She added she wished it had not focused so much on the understood that was the issue at hand.”

-What does that mean? Is that even a sentence?

” I think that inviting those who are Holocaust deniers into an academic realm, debating and disproving them would be much more effective and meaningful than this controversy. ”

This is a very good point. It will NEVER happen. Why? Because behind the rhetoric of those who claim holocaust revisionists are spreading hate speech ( and no doubt some of those opinions are sincere )the REASON no debate can take place is because the promoters of this story have no facts to support their side.

I spoke with a Jewish student on Thursday who agreed this emotional response to the ad is partly from people not knowing the facts. This student was very interested in the idea of having a discussion where both viewpoints could be discussed. I was a bit shocked at how exceedingly polite and open minded this student was as the topic can often be very emotional for some.

It is not the first time I have had such conversations with persons who self identify as Jewish. Every such conversation is marked by friendliness and open mindedness.

In my experience, it is the evangelical Christian who will not tolerate any discussion on this topic.

“This newspaper has made a principle of accepting any individual or group advertisement submitted” Smathers is quoted in WSJ. Oh really I wondering if the BH would accept ads to porn sites. Maybe the porn industry isn’t aware because I would expect this page to be covered with their advertisements if it were.

It is ethically wrong to run the ad, but what is even more astonishing was when the advertising director of the badger herald stood up during the forum yesterday and said she didnt even check the ad before she ran it due to the fact that she is overwhelmed with 20 ads a day (because it really takes a long time to look at an ad). The advertising policies of the badgerherald need to be changed and made public in writing. It is irresponsible for a campus newspaper to not have a policy written out beforehand, and procedures in place to deal with threatening ads.

Another jackpot for the BH. Complete disrespect on their part to run this ad- it is obscene and it is hurtful. To put up two different points of view is acceptable, to advertise, which is to condone, an irrational fringe opinion which is generally offensive to the majority, is a despicable action.

Who does Smathers think he is? Conclusion of the panel, whose list of qualifications are supremely higher than his: You’re wrong.

Human sexuality: obscene. Vile lies: not obscene. Got it.

Smathers should just admit he’s wrong and apologize. The longer this goes on the more he’s damaging his character. Even if only partially wrong, the most damage controlling action would be to apologize. Apparently, regret is not in Smather’s vocabulary.

I thought that the freedom to question ANYTHING was one of the things Americans fought for in WWII. Would there be such controversy if someone questioned the Civil War or the Revolution or God or anything else? Why is this “holocaust” treated like a religion?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFekU6KS1hA

I think the terms for accepting ads at the Badger Herald are too vague. Threatening? In what way? Call me sensitive, but as a Jew, I find a Holocaust denying website extremely emotionally threatening. Covering up your wrong doings and claiming that you trusted we would reject the website as a lie is NOT an excuse. Publishing an ad that says 2+2=7 would not bring such upset to the UW community. Offensive advertisements should not be tolerated at the Badger Herald. When will Smathers be a professional and admit this is a mistake and apologize?

“[Smathers] also said he believed leaving the ad up on the website does more harm to the ad�s message than the ad does to UW. He said by taking the ad down, the Herald would be giving Smith a potentially legitimate argument � a suppression of free speech � to draw attention to his opinions. He added if the paper had not posted the ad, Smith would have found other ways to get his message across.”

Smathers: why are you more committed to hurting Smith’s cause than the pain you are inflicting upon: 1) the students on our campus, 2) anyone who favors fact over ideology, and 3) every victim and survivor of the Holocaust? Your newspaper should aim to serve the UW campus community; worrying about the effect that your actions will have on Bradley Smith’s cause should not be your first priority. Your self-serving actions have proven to be offensive to thousands of students, faculty, alumni, and tuition-paying parents. Please swallow your pride, take down this ad, and apologize. Besides, Smith will consider the full-run of his ad a VICTORY for Holocaust deniers (how many hits do you think he has gotten on his website in the last few weeks?!?!). Give him what he “expects” - a student body committed to honoring the memory of those 11 million innocent people who perish in the Holocaust.

I just want to add that I am currently studying abroad in Prague, and today had the opportunity to meet with a Holocaust survivor and listen to her story. She lives in a small city called Lidice that was completely destroyed by Nazis - not only was every building burned to the ground, but every man, woman, and child was either killed on the spot or sent away to camps, just for living in a town where a small number of Czech resistance fighters were living - no one in the town was Jewish. She described the conditions of Auschwitz, her experiences in re-entering society, and the sorrow she still feels today. Listening to her speak today compelled me to write this comment. Please take the ad down.

I sure hope next year’s BH staff is better than this year’s. What a bunch of douchebags!

There is a book the students should read, by Prof. Arthur Butz of Northwestern Univ, titled ‘The Hoax of the Twentieth Century’. You can guess what he’s referring to.

Another worth reading is ‘The First Holocaust, Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns With Holocaust Claims During World War One’ by Don Heddesheimer.

Both available on amazon and must reading.

The US is involved in two or three wars, to some extent because of US support for Israel. The foundations of that state should be subjected to the closest possible examination, not protected by a ‘taboo’ as is evident from the hullaboo around a 7 word ad.

what concerns me is smathers seemingly passing the buck again. last fall it was a shoutout that got printed that he didn’t know about. now it’s this that he didn’t know about. dude, it’s your paper. you gotta know these things and take accountability for them. stop passing the buck.

that said, i agree with allowing the ad to stay up. even this guy is allowed to his opinion, even if any reasonable person can see it’s utter bullshit. publishing it just shows how ignorant this smith guy is.

— a former herald editor

The following are the names of 16 concentration camps under German control in 1944. These were specifically identified, by survivors, as extermination camps where Jewish persons had been gassed to death.

Buchenwald, Bernberg, Brandenburg, Dachau,Grafneck, Gusen, Hadamar, Hartheim, Mauthausen, Natzweiler, Neuengamme, Ravensbruck, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Sonnerstein, Fort Pozman.

What do we know about these camps? We know they housed hundreds of thousands of Jews who survived the war and were released. We know not one Jew was gassed at any of those 16 “extermination ” camps.

Collectively, the number of Jews who were imprisoned in these camps is 10-15 times MORE than in Auschwitz. Which brings us to a bizarre situation. Why is it nearly ALL holocaust survivors who are writing books and speaking to school children ALL begin their speech by noting they were sent to Auschwitz, and by the grace of God, survived the gas chambers.

Anyone who has studied statistics should realize that with 20,000 concentration camps housing millions of people, very few of those survivors living in America today, could have been imprisoned in Auschwitz. Yet, nearly every week a new face appears and a new story and of course the featured speaker was sent to Auschwitz and was spared by Dr. Mengele himself.

Because these people are self identified holocaust survivors, not one person in the audience is going to dare question what they say.

I have met at least 20 ‘Auschwitz’ survivors but never one from the other 16 camps. Call me a skeptic with a capital S.

Can I do a timeline here: BH runs AePi article

BH runs piece acknowledging a few comments on that board (any time an article created talking about annonymous comments, that’s great journalism)

BH takes those comments and correlates this with a “problem of antisemitism that needs to be addressed on campus” (despite the fact that the comments could have very well come from outside the student body, or outside the city/state)

This denier is alerted to this antisemitism controversy, contacts BH, asks to place an ad for $75, which the BH agrees to. The ad is text only, not noticable if you aren’t looking for it, not color like the MG&E ads that we all ignore

This is my favorite part. SMATHERS RUNS AN OP-ED EXPLAINING THE INCLUSION OF THIS TINY, TINY, TEXT ONLY AD. This is not an AD I would have ever seen, looked at, or acknowledged without that article. I had to actively look for it, and of course I clicked it and perused the site. So you really are giving that dude wayyyyyyyy more than his money’s worth by constantly talking about the ad.

BH covers anti-holocaust rally, a rally that would have never taken place without the BH running the ad along with the OpEd that served as an ad.

BH gets neutered in public at a panel discussing their 1st ammendment ratoinale. everyone agrees they were in the wrong. BH runs no formal apology

Conclusion: This is a controversey BH created by itself, stemming from the articles dedicated to addressing comments on a comment board. THIS IS THE WORST TYPE OF JOURNALISM. COMMENT BOARD JOURNALISM. If anyone reads Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, thamong other papers, they know that online columns have racist/otherwise inflammatory comments in the comment section. However these papers don’t create controversey by writing an article the next day drawing attention to annonymous comments, and drawing a conclusion that these comments represent the community at large. Probably because they are, you know, real journalists.

All these protests, forums, stupid bullshit was set in motion by the leadership at the BH, whom apparently lack common sense and seemed to have accepted their role as a shit stirring tabloid.

Smathers is being publicly shamed for his weak minded 1st ammendment rationale. He didn’t practice common sense, and is justifiably seen as an idiot by most right thinking BH readers. Smathers, I hope you are embarassed and ashamed, I know I would be if I were in your shoes.

If there was a site that talked about Muhammad being a pedophile that wanted to put up an ad do you think the BH would take the ad?

Probably not, they’d be too scared for their lives.

So Kevin Bargnes, Let’s draw a line in the sand to determine what ad’s (including their respective links) you will and will not accept in your newspaper.

You indicated that ANY ads that are not “obscene” as stated in your definition above can run in your newspaper.

Would you accept the following?

1. Ad’s opposing abortion, including a link showing an actual abortion such as http://herestheblood.com/ (Regardless where you stand on this issue, do I have the right to advertise it in your newspaper and include a graphic video link—which is not obscene—but is very disturbing?)

2. Ad’s opposing Peta…stating that Peta is Destroying America with a link to this site showing support for brutally murdering animals. http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=i+hate+animals&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Or how about this one?

1. Will you let these people (http://search.creativecommons.org/?q=gods+hit+list+&sourceid=Mozilla-search) take out an ad that states God wants the following people dead because they harm America entitled Enemies of the homeland ..which includes our current and former presidents at the top of the list?

I am not saying that I agree with ads like these, quite the opposite, but maybe you need to think long and hard about where you stand and what you will allow in your newspaper.

Because now that you have established your newspaper as a forum for spreading hate, lies and ignorance—is it your goal to reach out and appeal to more groups like this to place ads?

As someone from your paper stated during the question/answer forum…too many ads came in that day, like 20, its impossible to have the time to look at all of them…that the holocaust denial ad just slipped through, but then..hmmm, you didn’t take it down either now did you? And come on, 20 ads was too many and you don’t feel a responsibility here to verify what is advertised in your newspaper and where the links take you? What if the link took you to a child porn site—how would you know if you didn’t check it?

So what is the excuse for allowing the Holocaust denial ad to run? It slipped through unchecked or now that you know about it, since it’s not obscene, your ok with it, therefore, you will allow any ads that are not obscene in your newspaper?

it was a pleasure watching the videos and watching smathers squirm, getting his circuitous arguments challenged by people much more intelligent than him. it was especially fun watching the look on his face after Schweber called his first amendment rationale a red herring

I think that Jason Smathers should tender his resignation as Editor in Chief for the Badger Herald. It is clear that his actions were wrong, as proven by a panel of experts.

The University should request his resignation and an advisor should be placed on the Board of Directors.

It’s time for smathers to resign, along with the advestising executive in charge. How can the chief editor fail to take responsibility for this ad’s posting? Is he oblivious to the on-goings at bh?? What exactly is he doing. Between the offensive shoutout posted earlier and the holocaust denial ad, it’s time for a changeup. He has to take full responsiblity for his oversights.

Well, a few points.

1. It was a mistake for Donald Downs to have not been a part of that panel. I do think that, as a general rule, he’s overly ‘libertarian’ in his theory of free speech, but there’s certainly something to be said for the point that terms like ‘threatening’ and ‘unethical’ are always subjective and limiting speech on those grounds is dangerous to everyone, as anyone who is aware of how this country handled the speech of political radicals earlier in the early-to-mid 1900’s knows.

I think Schweber showed how this case is an exception, both practically and in a legally valid sense, because of the ad’s secondary effects. It’s a far better argument to say this ad didn’t deserve a platform because it’s a tool for hate group recruitment than because the author is an asshole.

1. Howard Schweber must have had pity on the Herald. He can normally be much more vocal and more ruthless towards the intellectual failures of others.

2. The Badger Herald advertising department better get its shit together. I can’t believe the advertising people not only admitted they don’t review their ads before publishing them but then indignantly DEFENDED the practice as if it’s normal or the way it should be because it’s so hard to look over what you publish. Perhaps you guys should consult U.S. legal precedents before adopting that strategy.

The UW community has gotten way too oversensitive. Dude, it’s an ad. I can’t even fathom how many ads I ignore on a daily basis.

The current requirements for accepting ads are that they not be threatening, obscene or legally libelous.

The future requirements for accepting ads will be that they not be threatening, obscene, legally libelous, or distressing towards jews. Makes perfect sense.

How do your Professors explain that there was no order from Hitler to exterminate Jews, no proof of alleged gas chambers, and no mass graves that would produce anywhere near the remains of a million victims, let alone six million, burnt or otherwise and there being NO MENTION of any gas chambers or mass extermination of the Jews in the letters, notes or memoirs of Roosevelt, President Truman, (General then President) Eisenhower or Churchill? I dare any student to ask their “Professor” this question and see what kind of response they get.

It’s about time this subject was brought to the forefront. Whether or not the “holocaust” actually happened (or not) is not the point; it’s about time this touchy subject be brought to scrutiny, investigation and critique.

A very important principle is being lost in this issue. There’s NOTHING WRONG with being skeptical… about ANY issue. Skepticism is the basis of critical thinking and logic. The Socratic method is closely aligned to skepticism. I go so far as to say that frequent and healthy exercise of the skeptical faculties is a PRIMARY DUTY of all intelligent people.

Therefore, it’s perfectly acceptable to examine Holocaust skeptic arguments (and any other controversial position). I have nothing but contempt for those who use emotional arguments to avoid debate.