I saw this segment yesterday on O'Reilly's show and had to agree those cartoons were extremely offensive to Christians and should not be funded by taxpayers or students. Yes, the First Amendment gives us the right to publish offensive items, but the U of O is poorly represented by a publication it funds that resorts to such shock-value entertainment.

I do feel it was totally unfair for O'Reilly to expect Dave Frohnmayer to drop everything at the last minute and drive to Portland so he could be on the show. That's O'Reilly's style of spinning the facts to inflame his viewers. I wonder, though, if Frohnmayer was asked to provide a statement in response to O'Reilly's attack.

Ben,

What you and O'Reilly are ignoring is that according to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, neither Frohnmeyer nor the student government can remove this publication's funding on the basis of content.

A similar controversy erupted last year when a conservative publication printed material that some people considered hate speech against transgendered people. (I say "some people considered" because I didn't actually read the material myself.) In that case, too, large number of people wanted the publication's funding from the student government revoked, but due to this ruling, that could not happen.

Well, since the Supreme Court has ruled thusly, then Frohnmayer was correct in not taking action to defund the publication. I wonder why O'Reilly did not point out this fact on his program? Surely he was aware of that fact, I was not.

So, now, I will retract my earlier statement that the offensive content should not be funded by taxpayers or students. I would expect that future issues of any university student publication should be allowed to publish any content that is not threatening in nature. I suppose if a group of white supremists want to publish cartoons lampooning any or all racial groups, the public will just have to suck it up and live with it.

I wonder if O'Liely realizes that Frohnmayer is a Republican...

So, I'm going to guess that these two douchebags who went on his show were actually College Republicans. Has anyone noticed that the Hannitys and O'Lielys of the world have resorted to using College Republicans as occasional pundits, as if to say, "there is this MOVEMENT in our colleges, warriors on the front line against liberalism... here's their report"

They need to read Operation Yellow Elephant.

What do you think would happen if they published Jesus having sex O'Reily?

Just a Question.

"You know what you two look like? Like a couple of guys who just blew off somebody's head."

I wasn't aware of this publication called "The Insurgent". Does anyone in Eugene know where I can get one, or would like to send me a copy?

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly, for making me aware of this obscure student publication. If I weren't a U of O student, I wouldn't have known about it until now.

Having rejected O'Reilly's invitation for me to appear two years ago, I'm glad Frohnmayer has the same response -- it's junk, and you're only helping him sell his entertainment. It's like going on Lars: what's the point besides helping increase his ratings? None. None at all.

Anon... would we know of you if you said your name? The suspense is killing me.

Good on ya for not taking the bait.

The Insurgent is published by the socialitst group as an answer for the College Republicans rag. They're scattered around campus...

"It's like going on Lars: what's the point besides helping increase his ratings? None. None at all."

It's smarter and easier to only talk to our friends on KPOJ's Tom Hartman. That way we can help his ratings while avoiding the other side.

As a member of the UO College Dems and knowing people in the CR's I must say I have never heard their names before but I have heard they are a very far leftist paper. I personally have not read the issue but to the person asking where you can get a copy. If you go to the EMU there is a cubby area behind Subway that has copies of almost all student funded publications. Check there if not e-mail them.

If one has the wit & courage of Jon Stewart, the result of taking the bait could be the sinking of the whole stinking ship.

<h2>"It's smarter and easier to only talk to our friends on KPOJ's Tom Hartman. That way we can help his ratings while avoiding the other side."</h2>

Yep...smarter and easier to only talk to friends. And also, make sure that your friends have the same political beliefs...that's smarter too. Always avoid debating the other side. Yep.

Come on, you cowards!! Political debate is a battle. You have to ENGAGE the other side. You have to ARM yourself with a better arguement, and then blast away at the ditto heads.

Running away is the choice of a coward. Running only to friends to debate with like minded people will not win the battle.

Okay, I'm all in favor of preaching beyond the choir, but I can't get past the hysterical laughter at the idea of "anon" promoting standing up courageously for one's position!

"The Insurgent is published by the socialitst group as an answer for the College Republicans rag. They're scattered around campus..."

I think they're more anarchist than socialist, really. And I also don't think the College Republicans have a publication. Times may have changed...

Not to boast, but I'd tear O'Reily or Hannity up. So could lots of folks. But they only invite milktoast Dems who find themselves aquiescing to get 'daddy' love from Loofah and HanniDate. They discount the blogs where real folks who deal with real facts find the only place to share ideas. They're scared to death to bring blog pundits on because talking points don't last long in a REAL discussion.

Folks. By no means do I intend to suggest that you should have watched the O'Reilly segment. O'Reilly is nauseating and is generally best avoided. But a lot of the information getting tossed around on this message board is erroneous, and it should be pretty easy to get it straight. Neither of the two guests on the segment are College Republicans, and they are not both protesting the Student Insurgent. The guy with the fifty-pound crucifix dangling from his neck is Jethro Higgins. He is protesting the Insurgent. He represents Students of Faith, a group initiated within the Catholic Newman Center on campus specifically to protest the Insurgent. The guy on the right side of the screen is Tyler Graf. He's from the Oregon Commentator, and he isn't protesting the Insurgent at all. He's defending free speech on campus, and he's defending Frohnmayer's actions. The College Republicans do not have a magazine on campus, nor do the College Democrats. Both groups do have members who are paid columnists for the daily newspaper, the Emerald. The Insurgent represents a hodgepodge of anarchist/Marxist/radical green viewpoints-- they've run the gamut over time from encouraging acts of violence against biology professors or relying on vitamin C and parsley as a contraceptive, to publishing wistful recollections of Burning Man or, now, cartoons of Jesus with huge pink boners. The Oregon Commentator is most often described as libertarian, but it isn't a solely political magazine. The Commentator's position here is that the Insurgent might not be thinking clearly, but that's no reason to censor or defund the magazine. This contrasts nicely with the fact that last year, members of the Insurgent crusaded to get the Commentator thrown off campus-- for making dick jokes. The Commentator's position is also that Frohnmayer's actions in this instance have been entirely appropriate, and that an attack on him is essentially an attack on the UO. The Oregon Commentator did, in fact, republish the cartoons depicting Mohammed. The proudly liberal Harper's Magazine has now done the same in a brilliant piece by Art Spiegelman, although apparently their new issue is not online. Only an idiot could read the OC Editorial and still conclude that its intent was in any way anti-Muslim.

Chuck is right.

I love this quote. It comes from a church newsletter--a relative is music director for the church and the newsletter was sent to me as a forward. The author is a clergyman who has more of a clue about "values" and Christianity than O'Reilly (merely a TV and radio personality) will ever have.

..........it completely misses the point in being a Christian. We are not a political party or an aggressive ideology. We are not members of an exclusive club. We are part of a body called to be the visible presence of Christ in the world. As such we are called to serve others, not to antagonize them or devalue them for their differences from us. We are like leaven, Jesus said. And the point of leaven isn’t to turn everything into yeast, but to make the whole loaf rise.......

Folks. By no means do I intend to suggest that you should have watched the O'Reilly segment. O'Reilly is nauseating and is generally best avoided. But a lot of the information getting tossed around on this message board is erroneous, and it should be pretty easy to get it straight. Neither of the two guests on the segment are College Republicans, and they are not both protesting the Student Insurgent. The guy with the fifty-pound crucifix dangling from his neck is Jethro Higgins. He is protesting the Insurgent. He represents Students of Faith, a group initiated within the Catholic Newman Center on campus specifically to protest the Insurgent. The guy on the right side of the screen is Tyler Graf. He's from the Oregon Commentator, and he isn't protesting the Insurgent at all. He's defending free speech on campus, and he's defending Frohnmayer's actions. The College Republicans do not have a magazine on campus, nor do the College Democrats. Both groups do have members who are paid columnists for the daily newspaper, the Emerald. The Insurgent represents a hodgepodge of anarchist/Marxist/radical green viewpoints-- they've run the gamut over time from encouraging acts of violence against biology professors or relying on vitamin C and parsley as a contraceptive, to publishing wistful recollections of Burning Man or, now, cartoons of Jesus with huge pink boners. The Oregon Commentator is most often described as libertarian, but it isn't a solely political magazine. The Commentator's position here is that the Insurgent might not be thinking clearly, but that's no reason to censor or defund the magazine. This contrasts nicely with the fact that last year, members of the Insurgent crusaded to get the Commentator thrown off campus-- for making dick jokes. The Commentator's position is also that Frohnmayer's actions in this instance have been entirely appropriate, and that an attack on him is essentially an attack on the UO. The Oregon Commentator did, in fact, republish the cartoons depicting Mohammed. The proudly liberal Harper's Magazine has now done the same in a brilliant piece by Art Spiegelman, although apparently their new issue is not online. Only an idiot could read the OC Editorial and still conclude that its intent was in any way anti-Muslim.

I didn't mean to double-post. Sorry.

That's how I thought it worked too.

Folks, take your Bible, read it, and try to comprehend it for yourself. Realize that the mouthpiece of God here on earth consists of religious leaders, all human, who are biased as such. Look at the spectrum of Christianity... the stark contrasts in teachings and interpretations, beliefs thought to be in stone.

Now we have the non-descript Mega-Churchs with the authenticity, history and aesthetic of a stripmall. They're led not by men of the cloth, but holding companies, cable channels, and GOP PR and funraising flacks. A new commercial enterprise in a new frontier, and a new low in opportunism. It's worse that these houses of the holy double as an outlet for political propaganda, disguised as gospel. 50 years ago, many of the red-meat issues for today's far-right wouldn't be on anyone's radar. Now we have back-room discussions (today in the Senate) about A CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENT against gay marriage. I believe that would be the first ammendment that actually 'restricts' a human's rights... and, well, the first ten are THE BILL OF RIGHTS for cryingoutloud. So are supporters justifying this embarrassment with the (weak) argument that #11-through-#? were open season for who-knows-what because it wasn't implicitly stated to be otherwise?

Congratulations Mega-Tax-Exempt-Church Nation on your short-sighted, lazy stewardship of our country's governing laws and disregard for an individual's liberties and rights. Sheeple, give up the BS arguments to relax separation of Church and State... it's there precicely because our forefathers lived through the consequences when the lines are blurred. Realize that clear lines can only help churches too.

Kudos to all Christians who choose to stand up to the bastardization and hijacking of your faith. I hope you're less of a silent minority than we think...

There is no such thing as bad publicity to a person like O'Reilly, so your post has just given him the kind of attention he seeks with his psychotic rambling. Who cares what he thinks or says?

The one thing I have not seen mentioned here is the difference between the Christian outrage at this publication in comparison to the Muslim reaction to the Danish publication.

Both the Christian and Muslim community have the right, if not obligation, to be offended by the blasphemous attacks on their religious leaders, the reaction was vastly different.

The outrage of Islam against Denmark produced threats of deadly retaliatory terrorist activity. I have a contact residing in Denmark who says the people there, while not walking in fear, fully expect some terrorist action to take place at any time.

Even the most indignant Christian has not threatend the life of any of those involved in The Insurgent's publication. Students at the University do not expect some terrorist activity in retaliation nor do residents of Eugene need fear such a response, either.

This publication is the product of immature, misguided youths acting impetuously with no regard to the feelings of others. "Pissing off" other people does not win friends or influence people."

Most (large) colleges have both a 'mainstream' some-what liberal publication, plus a more underground uber-liberal half anarchist/The Nation-esque type of views.

Just goes with the territory. Students who attend college also can apply for healthcare (gasp!)

The Old One is a wise one. Thank you for adding some perspective to this thread.

However, I would take issue with your final statement, as well as CLP's post. This has to do with the fallacy and hypocrisy of the Supreme Court's varied decisions regarding application of the First Amendment.

In contrast with the decision cited by CLP, SCOTUS has also held that groups, such as unions, cannot use members' funds to promote an agenda without the assent of the members. And they have held that government must remain neutral in the context of advocacy of any social agenda, religion, or political position. Only natural (real human) citizens possess the full right of freedom of speech, not government offices or agencies, and not legalistic fictions (meaning businesses and organizations).

In the U of O case being discussed, funding for the student paper comes from the public coffers. Therefore, if the Supreme Court's decisions were to be entirely consistent, the content of the paper must either be scrupulously neutral, or carefully balanced in order to avoid giving real or perceived preference to any particular viewpoint. Absent that, the publication should be defunded. The students would, of course, be free to fund their own publication and then be able to truly exercise their Constitutional right of Freedom of Speech.

Beyond that, only libel laws would limit what is published.

And a modicum of common sense, aspiration to truth, and good taste might help.

Just one Libertarian's opinion.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes so accurately quipped, "The law is an ass."

Boy You Libs are freaking out... It is a riot, Watching that Lib President squirm like a worm and not be man enough to tell O' Liar where to stick it... I am going to sit back and watch your party self destruct, with Howard Dean and Harry Weed, it wont take long. As a registered independent, I revel in watching the Libs and Cons fight each other.... Attacking Jesus??? Smart move for someone who doesnt want to see another Democrat hold any office of power. Considering that most Americans are christians, or at least respect religion enough not to say something stupid like U of O, you are not doing a good job of capturing the hearts of Americans. I wonder what the reaction to U of O would be if they published cartoons of Mohammed, but I guess, they dont have the guts. But I figure that they would expect a pass as well.. people's religious belief,

What is JKsDone saying? Is this some lame attempt at free verse? It is certainly not an example of cogent prose. Looks like someone who did not even qualify for bonehead English.

The Old One considers himself somewhat middle of the road.

Bill O'Reilly should have let sleeping dogs lie. He has given The Insurgent much more publicity and notoriety than the children publishing it ever achieved on their own with their infantile, tasteless publication. Prior to the O'Reilly thing, this stuff was pretty much unpublicized out of the Eugene area.

Colleges are full of immature students who exhibit juvenile behavior because that is the only way they can attract any attention to themselves and their warped, degenerate, demented thinking. Otherwise, they are totally ignored and disregarded, as all crackpots should be.

We live in a society that can accept the idea that sticks and stones may break bone, but names never hurt us. As long as these people do not cross over to doing vicious, vandalistic illegal acts such as the SDS did in the 60s or the ELF is doing now, I say let them display their ignorance.

The Old One might take note that Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere protested peacefully for months following the publication of the drawings of Muhammed. It's only after the world resoundingly ignored those protests -- and showed it by cavalierly reprinting the drawings -- that some of them got frustrated and some of those got violent.

It's too early to congratulate yourselves that the indignant Christians of Eugene have not yet resorted to terrorism.

Interesting comments so far.

To those who are interested in reading a copy of the Student Insurgent that resulted in this controversy, it has been republished online by The Oregon Commentator (a conservative journal of opinion): <ahref=http: www.oregoncommentator.com="" 2006="" 04="" 21="" electronic-insurgent=""/>http://www.oregoncommentator.com/2006/04/21/electronic-insurgent/.

In response to what some people have said, as a University of Oregon student, I feel it important to make sure some of the facts are clear to those interested in the controversy:

First off, kudos to Bryan for establishing some of the other important facts. Everything he said was accurate.

Second off, in response The Old One, his comments about the Insurgent cartoons being immature echoed almost exactly what David Frohnmayer said in his initial response to the Insurgent controversy, published as a Letter to the Editor of the <ahref=http: www.dailyemerald.com="">Oregon Daily Emerald, the campus newspaper. I am also impressed by the tolerance of the Christian response, relatively speaking. Ultimately, the outrage makes the Insurgent's initial point: That the reaction of the Muslims to the desecration of their spiritual leader was neither irrational or unpredictable. Christian leaders in Eugene have said, on the local news channel KMTR, that they seek not dignify the publication any further with a response. I think this is a very noble position.

Third, in response to Grumpy Eric, it is important to remember that no tax dollars go to publish the Insurgent, it is funded only by ASUO student fees. The way the ASUO has interpreted the Court, which is consistent with other student unions' interpretations, is that the biases are neutralized by other publications it funds. The Commentator, a conservative journal also published by the ASUO, is openly not neutral about its opinions, and faced a similar controversy as this last year when it published material offensive to transgendered and homosexual people. It also republished the Muhammed cartoons earlier this year, but was more mature about it. Anyway, if the ASUO were to take the stance that every paper it funded remain neutral, it would have to defund not only the Insurgent but also the conservative <ahref=http: www.oregoncommentator.com="">Commentator. I think few students on either side believe this would be good for the University. To be honest, despite even this controversy, the vast majority of the student population simply doesn't care that much. That aside, I agree that an aspiration to good taste and respect would have been appropriate here.

In response to JKsDone, there are a lot of factual problems here. Frohnmayer actually declared that O'Reilly's show was little more than entertainment, as reported in the <ahref=http: www.dailyemerald.com="">Daily Emerald. The Emerald also pointed out that its hardly likely that fear was involved in his decision not to go on O'Reilly, considering his background. Furthermore, the UO President is not widely considered to be liberal. I've heard that he is, in fact, a registered Republican, but I cannot verify this for sure. Next, the Democrats nor the Republicans had no part in the Insurgent's decision to publish the offensive material. Most of the Insurgent's staff are also registered Independents, like JKsDone. The U of O Administration also had no part in the Insurgent's position. The U of O has also, as earlier established, no legal ability to shut down or censor the publication. The authors of the issue are Oregon students, they do not by any means represent the University or are thought to be speaking on its behalf. As for the "I wonder what the reaction would be..." argument, this has come up many times during this controversy. The truth is that the <ahref=http: www.oregoncommentator.com="">Oregon Commentator, another ASUO publication, earlier published the Muhammed cartoons widely considered to be offensive to Muslims. The ASUO did not shut down this publication either. In short, the "what the reaction would be if..." or "if this was making fun of anyone but Christians,..." situation did in fact occur, and there was no reaction. The ASUO also took the same exact stance.

I also must say that as a liberal, I've been particularly impressed by the <ahref=http: www.oregoncommentator.com="">Commentator's coverage of the whole incident. While I disagree with their editorial opinions almost constantly, they (and Tyler Graf) were totally right about this. Either way, I hope this provides some perspective of what's actually going on, despite what O'Reilly has been spewing to the contrary.

The bottom line is, in my opinion, everyone in a free society should have the right to safely publish material like this without government retribution, but should have the decency to choose not to.

Oh, one more thing, anyone interested in reading the ASUO's response to the grievance filed against the Student Insurgent by the religious group "Students of Faith," it has been republished here: http://www.oregoncommentator.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/Students_of_Faith_v_ASUO_Student_Insurgent.pdf

It might provide some insight into why the ASUO and the University really have no power to or, on principle, no interest in, censoring student publications like the Student Insurgent or the Oregon Commentator.

mp has several excellent points. Thank you for adding to Bryan's factual reporting.

One thing, though, that you need to consider is that money is fungible. The U of O is a publicly funded state university. That means that, if the university contributes at all to the student publications (e.g. facilities, equipment, whatever), then it is indeed public moneys involved. That means public agency responsibility and limitations are involved, student fees notwithstanding.

Were it a private institution, then the fact that student union fees are involved can be argued to absolve the university of responsibility. But then there is the issue of it being non-representative of the student member's wishes for how the funds are to be spent promoting some viewpoint. Student union fees typically cannot be "target designated" when paid. Again, because money is fungible.

This could be circumvented by breaking down the fees to their allocations, allowing the students to opt out of paying for funding a particular activity.

So to my way of thinking (and I readily admit it is only an opinion), this all still imposes the burden of neutrality or balance on the publications.

Anyone would be hard-pressed to say that an allegedly reasoned editorial publication of the anti-Muslim cartoons is balanced by what are reportedly apparently clearly derogatory anti-Christian cartoons. [I've only seen the reportage, not the publications.]

In any case, taking the anti-Christian cartoons alone, you don't excuse bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior, or by trying to point to a different non-anti-Christian publication. That's not balance by any stretch of the imagination.

I come back to the argument I presented earlier that Freedom of Speech cannot be considered license by any government or private organization to promote or denigrate any agenda. And, yet again, the students are quite free to publish what they please on their own dime and time.

Yeah, actually I do need to be clear about a couple points. I was mostly trying to paraphrase the ASUO's opinion on the matter and provide some contextual facts, rather than present my personal views.

But that aside, there is an interesting argument to be made regarding the use of public equipment or facilities, such as the EMU at which the publication is distributed. This might be debateable considering the various ambiguities regarding how the facilities involved are owned and managed (which may even be independent of the University), and so one could possibly make the case that the University in some way subsidizes this publication. This would be difficult to prove; and even more difficult to prevent; but the possibility does in fact exist. So as toward GrumpyEric's comments here, this definately holds water. I might suggest however that the precedent at the University regarding the Commentator's and the Voice's past indiscretions would make a sudden decision to ban this particular paper hypocritical and un-American, but it may have some legal validity, although not very much.

As for the neutrality issue, the main purpose of bringing that up wasn't to suggest that the anti-Christian rhetoric of the Insurgent was balanced by the anti-Muslim rhetoric of the Commentator, or if I seem to have said that, I should take it back as it is indeed absurd. The "two wrongs make a right" logic seems even a little ridiculous for the ASUO - although I wouldn't totally put it out of their range. (It isn't totally ridiculous for me, but I'm kind of an idiot.)

But upon re-reading Goward's decision, I realize now that "neutralization by opposing viewpoints" is not, in fact, a accurate representation of the interpretation. The interpretation is that the decisions regarding the use of fees should (and must) be viewpoint-neutral. The Southworth case law, in this argument, is not taken to require that each of the publications must always maintain viewpoint neutrality. It only requires that publications must "contribute to the physical and cultural development of students," and beyond that the government has no control over content. Southworth also was cited by Commentator Editor Emeritus Tyler Graf in defending the decision to protect the Insurgent's right to free speech. If the ASUO began to censor publications on the basis that the ASUO viewpoint was biased in favor of Christianity, and that all speech offensive to this bias or any other bias should be banned, this would be a violation of Southworth. Here, again, they are bound to treat this issue the same way they treated the Commentator debacle last year, which would be to do nothing. Sudden action now could risk the demonstration of a bias.

In sum, it is now my understanding based on the interpretations of both Goward and the University Counsel who originally weighed in back in April that Southworth does not in fact require that publications give both sides of the story. It only requires that the ASUO, when making funding decisions, consider both sides.

All this being said, my personal opinion is basically that I concur with the editors of the Daily Emerald and the libertarian Commentator. It's more effective for those offended by this material to counter it with more speech, rather than trying to muzzle it with government action extending as far as criminal charges (which has even been suggested). I may concede to the "public funding" argument, but I'll have to think on that a bit. As far as I'm concerned, this case is pretty cut-and-dried just based on the notion of right to do something and decency not to.

As for the neutrality issue, the main purpose of bringing that up wasn't to suggest that the anti-Christian rhetoric of the Insurgent was balanced by the anti-Muslim rhetoric of the Commentator, or if I seem to have said that, I should take it back as it is indeed absurd.

While I appreciate most of the comments you've made in this thread, I must disagree with your characterization of the Commentator's content as "anti-Muslim rhetoric." I believe if you read the editorial in our Comics Kill issue it will become clear that we did not publish the Muhammed comics in an attempt to offend Muslims. Instead, we published the images because extremists were attempting to intimidate newspapers and stifle freedom of the press. Incidentally, they were largely successful in doing this-- look at how few media outlets in the U.S. decided to show images which were the very definition of the word "newsworthy".

The great distinction here is that the cartoons printed by the Insurgent were created for the express purpose of making news rather than delivering it. That's fine-- they have the legal right to do so. But I do believe that they are very different things.

Once the Insurgent's issue began to generate buzz, we essentially did what we had done earlier with the Muhammed cartoons-- made them more accessible. Since the Insurgent does not have a web presence (which is surely due to the implied binary gender-reinforcing system of digital communication,) we did them a favor and put their issue online.

The Commentator is not anti-Christian or anti-Muslim. We're just pro-free speech and that sometimes conflicts with people's interpretations of the Bible and Koran.

Cheers.

Marvelous post, mp. I suspect that if you were Canadian, your moniker could well become your official title. Good legalistic mind.

While you seem to want to dismiss my idea (but can't quite), permit me to repeat an interjection: "The law is an ass". Especially true when it isn't self-consistent, but all the more so when its narrow aim is to administer justice at the expense of rightness.

My point was to inject the worrisome concept that government-sanctioned bias or propaganda can be indirect at a second- or third-hand remove. And we should vigilantly guard against that if we hope to preserve our rights.

Having accomplished that by getting you to pondering on it, I'll admit to being very much in accord with your summary personal opinion and The Old One's opinion that 'This publication is the product of immature, misguided youths acting impetuously with no regard to the feelings of others. "Pissing off" other people does not win friends or influence people." '

I'm infamous for my "eriquotes": someone once said something about... the best remedy for noxious ideas is to have them aired out in an open public forum.

But my own words are: Freedom of Speech isn't free when you must pay with your dignity.

The students behind The Insurgent are deserving of public ridicule for their intentional insult to Christians. It's a pity that stocks went out of style. I think Frohnmayer may deserve only a pillory, not a stake and a firing. <all said="" with="" a="" grin="" and="" a="" wink="">

Which reminds me, Suzii, Christians have matured away from violent defense of their beliefs for some time now... since at least the Inquisition and the Salem Witch trials. So your silly innuendo is just that. Silly. I hope you were just jesting.

It's been a true pleasure sharing words with you fine folk, but I really must be strolling along. Toodles and best wishes to you all. I may make it back one day if I'm lucky.

Not really Grumpy, Eric

I believe if you read the editorial in our Comics Kill issue it will become clear that we did not publish the Muhammed comics in an attempt to offend Muslims.

You're right, Ian. I'm sorry if I misrepresented the Commentator's opinion. It was not my intent to do so, it was more of a grandiose mistake. That whole "anti-Muslim" thing was a part of paraphrase of what I incorrectly believed to be the ASUO's position: something along the lines of "the Insurgent's opinion is neutralized by the Commentator's opinion." This is not actually the case. I meant to retract this in full. The jist of my better understanding was that neutrality was legally mandated to be a principle of the ASUO's decisions, not of the publications it supports. Granted, I personal think the ASUO is far from neutral in its decisions, but that's beside the point.

I also loved the Commentator's editorial in Comics Kill as well as much of their commentary on the Insurgent controversy. I'm not even sure the Insurgent is anti-Christian either, but their opinion tends to "evolve," let's say, from issue to issue, so no one can really be sure. I don't mind paying some meager percentage of my student fees to the erection-sporting Insurgent so long as I also get the Commentator as well. And to ride buses for free, you must admit that's pretty sweet. Even when you have a car. And knowing that someone out there had a great time at Sunriver.

As toward Grumpy Eric's comments, I pretty much agree. Or at the very least, can agree to disagree. Thanks for all of your interesting perspectives on the matter. The pillory on Frohnmayer is a bit much though. But I figure that was a joke. Although it would make an entertaining political cartoon in response to this whole "mess." I would laugh. I would pause. And then I would laugh some more.

<h2>I think I'm pretty much done here. Good night everyone.</h2>