Censorship at the Boston University Daily Free Press

Pages: 1 2

Hi Kathryn,

Thank you for getting back to me. Can you please let me know exactly which phrase or word violated your policy?

I am sending a YouSendIt pdf of an edited version of the ad which ran in the UCLA Daily Bruin today. Please let me know if this one works within your policy. If not, can you let me know what we need to change?

Best,

Elizabeth Ruiz

Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Elizabeth Ruiz
Subject: Re: revised ad

Hi Elizabeth,

Our Board of Trustees took a look at your ad, and it is not a specific phrase or word that violated our policy, but that the general content may be offensive to our readers belonging to certain religious or ethnic groups. The edited version of this ad does not comply with our advertising policy.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Thank you,
Kathryn

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:44 PM, david horowitz wrote:

Kathryn Palkovics

Dear Kathryn,

I am the president of the David Horowitz Freedom Center which has submitted the ad “Palestinian Wall of Lies” for publication in your paper. As reported by you, the position of your board appears to be a policy to censor any comment critical of policies and/or positions taken by the terrorist organization Hamas, the government of Gaza, or the Palestinian Authority under a general rule that if you have readers who belong to terrorist organizations that happen to be Muslim or Palestinian your paper will not publish anything objectionable to them. Is this the position of your board. Or if this is a general rule, please assure me that you have never published an article critical of Israel that may be seen as offensive to readers who are Jews or Israelis.

Also, please send me a list of your board’s members with their contacts or some authority who can speak for them.

Sincerely,

David Horowitz

From: “Daily Free Press Adv. Dept.”

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 13:00:36 -0500

To: david horowitz

Subject: Re: revised ad

Hi David,

Thank you for reaching out to me regarding your “Palestinian Wall of Lies” ad. It is the policy of the Daily Free Press that we will not run ads that “promote discrimination against any gender, ethnicity, nationality, religious group or sexual orientation; or any content deemed patently offensive to the readership.” We try to be fair in rejecting ads promoting any type of political agenda that may be considered harmful or offensive to any reader, regardless of their faith, ethnicity, or beliefs. I have also cc’d our Chairman, Scott McLaughlin (dfpboard@gmail.com) on this email for your reference.

Thank you,
Kathryn Palkovics

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 1:25 PM, David Horowitz wrote:

My questions are 1) how is this ad offensive to an ethnic or religious group; 2) are Jews and Israelis excluded from your policy; 3) are there any ways we can modify our ad so that it would not seem offensive to your board?

From: dfpads@gmail.com [mailto:dfpads@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Daily Free Press Adv. Dept.
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 1:34 PM
To: David Horowitz
Subject: Re: revised ad

Hi David,

The Daily Free Press believes the depiction of a Muslim carrying a gun in the background, as well as the text regarding Arabs as rejecting peace, may be offensive not only to Muslim and Arab students, but to our readership as a whole. Jews and Israelis are not excluded from our policy. We have rejected ads from all types of political and religious institutions in the past in order to protect the integrity of the paper. If you have a copy of the ad with more peaceful undertones, without any violent images or statements of lies, the Daily Free Press would be happy to run that ad.

Thank you,
Kathryn

From: “Daily Free Press Adv. Dept.” <ads@dailyfreepress.com>

Sender: dfpads@gmail.com

Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:53:55 -0500

To: David Horowitz

Subject: Re: The revised ad

David,

Our board discusses your new ad last night and we cannot accept your “Wall of Lies” ad for print as it still violates our advertising policy.

Thank you,
Kathryn

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:33 PM, David Horowitz wrote:

We made every change from the original ad requested by the editors of the Daily Bruin. What specifically do you find to be offensive to an ethnicity or a religion in this ad that the Bruin editors did not, and also kindly respond to my question about material you have printed that would be offensive to Jews. Also please provide me with the names and contacts of your board members, and in writing the specific policy under which you are refusing to accept this ad.

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Daily Free Press Adv. Dept. <ads@dailyfreepress.com> wrote:

David,

I have reached out to the Board and asked them to reconsider the revised ad material.

I cannot disclose information about past ad rejections and acceptances as this is private information with our clients. The Chairman of the Board is CC’d on this email and can speak on behalf of the Board regarding any questions you have about our Board decisions.

Thank you,
Kathryn

From: “Daily Free Press Adv. Dept.” <ads@dailyfreepress.com>

Sender: dfpads@gmail.com

Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 21:10:54 -0500

Subject: Re: The revised ad

Hello,

Thank you for sending over your revised ad material. I just took a look over the ad content and because there were little to no changes made to the content of the ad besides the background image, we cannot run this ad. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Kathryn Palkovics

Pages: 1 2

  • Maggie

    BU has plenty of jewish and non-jewish alumnae who should stop donating,

  • Gamaliel Isaac

    Letter I sent to the "Free Press"

    Frontpage Magazine reported that you rejected their advertisement "The Wall of Lies" with the excuse that it was controversial and offensive. If that is your policy than you should be fair and apply it across the board. You should remove your article about VP Mercurio in which you quoted him as saying that as a leader at BU your time is not your own. That could offend a lot of students who feel that leaders at BU are not doing enough for them. You write that the BU hockey team stumbled in the Beanpot tournament. That's offensive to the dedicated players of the BU hockey team and considering the quality of their competitors it's an unfair and controversial statement….

  • Gamaliel Isaac

    letter cont'd
    You wrote how the special educators club wants to ban the use of the word retarded. Banning of words in the English language is an offensive attack on free speech. Many men find the Vagina monologues to be biased anti-male propaganda yet you write about it as if its a good thing. You write how Students for Justice In Palestine are educating people when many think they are inciting people to hate Israel. The right way to deal with speech that you find offensive or controversial is not to ban it but to answer it.

  • tagalog

    Their advertising policy justifies refusal to publish an ad in part because of “any content deemed patently offensive to the readership.”

    How does that policy justify prior restraint, when the readership has to have found it patently offensive? Oh wait, I see: it's deemed offensive TO the readership by the paper. Sorry. Doesn't that call for a conclusion about what their readers will find offensive? Does that kind of decision-making pass constitutional muster under the First Amendment?

    What is the distinction between content that is "deemed patently offensive" and content that is deemed to be NOT patently offensive?

    • Carl Sesar

      The BU Daily Press knows full well its readership's views and sensibilities, its likes and dislikes, because, for one thing, the editorial board shares in them, but also, it is after all their business to know in advance what is or may be offensive to its readers, and in this case the members of the board are absolutely correct in their assessment. Hatred for Israel is endemic at BU, among its students, faculty, and administrators. Were it not the case, there would have been a strong reaction against the board's decision, and the ad would have been published after all, right? What are BU's faculty and students and administrators doing about it? Nothing, as far as I can see, except for giving the board their tacit approval. It's the same at many other universities all over the country, Academia was the first to capitulate to such prejudices in Germany in the 1930's, too.

  • L P

    Maybe they are afraid a crowd of angry Moslem students will burn the paper's offices.

  • trickyblain

    Once Horowitz chimed in with his awful grammar, It's really too bad the response from BU wasn't merely:

    Dear David,

    F' off! We are a respected university. You are a laughable old hack. We don't need your Discover card and won't publish your corny, amateurishly designed propaganda. Have you ever considered hiring a graphic designer instead of assigning such tasks to a blind homeless man? And please remember that we are a private entity, so don't start with the "free speech" crap. We don't need to show you our ad policy. On the other hand — here's our policy in regards to the "Freedom Center:" F' off!

    Best,
    Tricky

    • MixMChess

      Hmmm… so let me get this straight, the Students for Justice in Palestine should be allowed to erect an “Apartheid Wall” and bring in hate-mongers to campus (like Diana Buttu, Noam Lekach and Elinor Amit), but the Freedom Center isn't allowed to offer a counter position. Yup, that all seems fair to me.

      • trickyblain

        Hmmm….I don't recall saying anything like that.

        It is possible to despise Islamic extermists and, at the same, ridicule Horowitz's patheitc over-the-top adventures. They are not mutually exclusive…

    • CanadConserv

      What specifically in the Wall Of Lies can only be the writings of "a laughable old hack?"

      And since the university is privately owned, apparently that's not a reason to expect freedom of speech to prevail on campus. What a sad – no, tragic actually – revelation about the left.

      • trickyblain

        Well, for starters, it is anti-intellectual. It's novice level propaganda by-design (Bold, all-caps in red? Please.) By using the term "lies," it is not academic — it declares that these assertions are demonstrably false, when real historians know that it's not as black and white. For example: 'Lie 1" (or LIE 1) leaves out the fact that the area was in fact called "Palestine" from 1918 until the creation of Israel. LIE 5 tries to split hairs b/t a "wall" and a massive reinforced "fence." LIE 2 glosses over the fact that Palestinians are completely restricted in their movement (albeit for debatable cause). LIE 4 tells us that Palestinians had a role in the Holocaust (without showing an active role), even though LIE 1 tells us that there were no Palestinians until 1964(!). And on and on and on. Laughable old hack.

        Trust me, Steve. Israel is much better off without this crap. It's comical and crazy. I'd be fine with the students seeing just how comical and crazy, but the university apparently thought it a bit over-the-top.

        • CanadConserv

          The lies about Israel are pure propoganda, anything but factual and academic. But they're winning the day. The completely false “apartheid state” lie has traction gloobally. Nice polite refuation is going nowhere. The Wall of Lies is strategically not meant to be a studious piece. It's meant to get a message across in very little time, because seconds is all it takes to walk by. I'm greatly relieved to see someone fighting back, using whatever means necessary.And I disagree with your arguments – which are incidental and not terribly relevant in any event. Lie 1 is accurate and factual. That the British referred to the area as Palestine is irrelevant. What is relevant are the other points, about Jewish history there, Jews as the indigenous people and Arab invasions.Lie 5 is accurate, important and factual: Israel is anything but an apartheid state. That's the point. With respect to the far less salient mention of the wall…The propagandists do not coincidentally use that word. They consider it purposeful. Lie 2 is accurate. Jerusalem is the one and only essentially religious Jewish city. That is not true for Muslims. Mecca and Medina are Islam's principle religious cities. (BTW, Jerusalem was almost entirely ignored as a religious site when Muslims controlled the city. It took on far more Islamic import once Jews were awarded the city by the League of Nations.). Your point about the “fact” that Palestinians are “completely restricted” is both irrelevant to the lie Horowitz decries and innacurate. West Bank Palestinians freely go to countries other than Israel, and many go there too. (http://www.palairlines.com/) ISrael certainly maintains control over military activity. But that is another matter. Gazans were equally restricted by Egypt, but no one mentions that. And to whatever degree they're restricted, as you suggest, it's with bloody (literally) good reason. people need to know that, rather than only hear the propogandists provide their spin on the explanation.Lie 4 is also accurate and factual. But, I will agree it almost implies that those Arabs we now call Palestinians hadn't ever lived there until the Jews arrived…again. However, that's not the point intended. it's that those in Gaza were principally recognized as Egyptians (Arafat was born in Cairo) and those on the west Bank as Jordanians. It is also true that the majority of those Arabs only settled in large numbers in the area once the Jews brought agriculture, industry, services and an economy, making the place habitable and desirable.Lie 7 about the Palestinians and the Holocaust is accurate, in that they did support Hitler and their principle leader even plotted a role for the mass murder of Jews in what is now Israel.

          • trickyblain

            I never said that accusations against Israel were 100% (or even 51%) truth. But it doesn't make crazy propaganda from the other side less absurd. And if not studious, why does it belong in a university paper?

            The points above stand despite your dismissing essential omissions/distortions/fabrications as irrelevant inconveniences.

            "They" are not winning the day. What does that even mean? Are you still under the influence that "THE LEFT" wants us all to live under Sharia law?

            Christ…

            I'm not asking for polite. I'm asking for citations, backing, logic, reality.
            This offers none of the above — it's an emotional tirade with not a whim of citable authority (you know, scholarship? The stuff U folks are looking for when publishing?)
            You whitewash key faults with this propaganda crap — saying "does not matter," "incidental" etc. In fact, Horowitz is exposed as an insane clown. Again.

          • CanadConserv

            Needless to say I disagree on what is fact or not. Regardless, the key point is this: The Arab and pro-Palestinian propagandists are winning. More and more people believe what they say. More and more even American media buys it (seen Time Magazine's latest stories on the conflict?). Reams and reams of scholarly refutations have done little good. The honest and fair message is not getting through for whatever reasons. What then is the answer to Israeli Apartheid Week on Campus? Polite dissertations? Academic presentations? An Alan Dershowitz speech? It's all been tried. It has all failed. Not that those should not be maintained, even bolstered. But they're insufficient. Direct, short, easily and quickly read counter messages are urgently needed. That's what Horowitz is providing. Good.

          • trickyblain

            I am a stanch proponent of conciseness and directness.
            But Horowitz's message is not effective. Watch the reaction from UCLA's Daily Bruin. I'll bet good money it will consist almost entirely of ridicule of Horowitz. Then he'll blame THE LEFT — and the FPM crew will nod — but the problem is his delivery and his erraticism. He's comedically easy to counter. Again, he does your side (and mine, for the most part) no favors.
            You actually do much better, old friend.

          • CanadConserv

            Thanks for the exchange. Nice to have one with you again. And all the best.

          • CanadConserv

            BTW, why is it you think non studious anti-Israel advertisements, info and propaganda can be published in university papers but not non studious pro-Israel refutations (that you disagree with the points notwithstanding)?And never would I have said that the left wants to see Sharia law here. However, in a kind of the enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of alliance, the far and somewhat far left are playing footsies with the Islamists, as they once did with the Soviet Communists. It's a marriage of convenience. The Iranian left once did that, until the Islamists devoured them after they jointly defeated their common enemy, the Shah. SteveOn Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 9:39 PM, Steve Blumer <steve.blumer@gmail.com> wrote: Needless to say I disagree on what is fact or not. Regardless, the key point is this: The Arab and pro-Palestinian propagandists are winning. More and more people believe what they say. More and more even American media buys it (seen Time Magazine's latest stories on the conflict?). Reams and reams of scholarly refutations have done little good. The honest and fair message is not getting through for whatever reasons. What then is the answer to Israeli Apartheid Week on Campus? Polite dissertations? Academic presentations? An Alan Dershowitz speech? It's all been tried. It has all failed. Not that those should not be maintained, even bolstered. But they're insufficient. Direct, short, easily and quickly read counter messages are urgently needed. That's what Horowitz is providing. Good.

          • trickyblain

            "BTW, why is it you think non studious anti-Israel advertisements, info and propaganda can be published in university papers but not non studious pro-Israel refutations (that you disagree with the points notwithstanding)?"

            I don't think that at all. I'm not a fan of unsupported propaganda on any level. This is not a zero-sum game.

          • penni

            Where are you from? Are you an American? Are you a Muslium Radical? Are you in a Radical Palestinian Students hate Israel, Jews propaganda hate group? VERBATUM, you rant the EXACT hate speech as [them] I wish students at BU, if you really go there, would find out who you really are?

          • trickyblain

            I am a Muslim American radical living in Somalia, while attending BU. My hobbies include making bombs, stoning adulterous women, and surfing.

            I am also half-Jewish, it's really confusing. One of my wives is Catholic and another is Mormon. So much for weekends, I'll tell you!

          • IndyIsDave

            So you're just a moron that no reasonable person should ever take seriously. Thanks for clearing that up bland.

          • trickyblain

            If you take Horowitz and his absurd "ad" seriously, that's quite a compliement Dave. So, thanks!

            I do find it pretty hilarious that not one person can explain Horowitz's contention that there were no Palestinians until the 1964, but the Palestinians had a role in the Holocaust, even though they did not exist at the time — according to the same ad. Sure. That's a reasonable assertion.

            Faith-based debate: Horowitz is right because folks here "know" that he is; I'm and "anti-semite" because they "want" me to be. Now I'm a "moron" because I mocked a hysterical loon demanding to know who and where I am.

            Glad I'm not you, bro.

          • IndyIsDave

            Glad I'm not you, bro.

            Oh my, what a witty response from bland. Trolls are morons and that is why I referred to you as such. You troll around a website that you obviously, neither like nor respect, apparently in some juvenile attempt to be heard. You can split hairs all you want with Horowitz's semantics in regards to the term "Palestinians", but Hassan al-Banna, founder of The Muslim Brotherhood was a huge admirer of Hitler. This is not debatable, so if you would like to debate that, feel free. The Muslim Brotherhood did give rise to Hamas and Hezbollah, along with the PLO. This is also incontrovertible fact. You, rather than frame your argument as you later did, played the good little leftist by immediately launching into name-calling and character assaults revealing quite a bit about your maturity and your agenda. No one is offended by you, you are merely a troll and I enjoy troll-hunting and, thus have absolutely no problem in referring to a troll as a "moron". Sorry your life is so empty and dull that trolling is something that you enjoy doing, but seriously bro, it's a big world outside of Mom's basement, go out and get some fresh air.
            So very glad I'm not YOU, bland.

          • trickyblain

            I would never debate that point about al-Banna/Hitler because it's true. Same could be said about many prominent Americans (admiration for Hitler). But what "role" did his people play in the Holocaust? Is it really a "lie" to argue that the Palestinians had no active role in the Holocaust?

            The problem with your "troll" description, Dave, is that I've been posting here since around 2002. I've developed numerous friendships with people who can argue with a level of creative — if playfully hostile — discourse. I don't take myself all that seriously, but I do enjoy reading and responding to extremists on both sides of the aisle. In most cases, it's out of a sincere desire to understand why/how they think what they do (and I think most who know me here would agree), but do admit in some cases it's fun to poke particularly self-important ideologues with a stick, just to see them froth.

            You're an excellent case study.

          • Witness

            Really you're linking to Palestinian Airlines? My what fine Google skills you have. Did you also find out that PalAir started in Egypt because the Israelis woudn't allow them to operate from Palestine. And then it briefly allowed them to until PalAir had to move back to Egypt after the Israeli forces destroyed the airport in Gaza.

            Crappy example. Try again. And you talk of propaganda.

          • CanadConserv

            Did you not notice that floights leave from Gaza?Do you not know that if hamas would just agree to let israel live in peace gaza would be fully independent. Are you not familiar with cause and effect?Do you not realize that Hamas is a proxy of Iran's mullahs?Do you not realize that Hamas adheres to the islamist, “One man; one vote; one time”? Or are you either a naive leftist (Obama's very slowly learning – take your cue from him) or closet Islamist?

        • penni

          Tricky, Go back 4,000 years. There were NO Palestinians. You are no intellect. But, you anti semite, it will take me too long to go into the history of Israel and the "Palestinians." Why don't you educate yourself? Look up Israeli Artifacts going back centuries. See the dates of the artifacts! Look up archeological digs in the Middle East. Investigate the history before your nasty rants. You only go back to 1918? You are all talk, "anti-intellectual" it's not academic" quoting from you. You are stuck on your , in your own mind INTELLEGENCE!

          • trickyblain

            What did I say that makes me an anti-semite, penni?

            Did I ever say anything about 4,000 years ago? Where do you get the idea that I deny Jewish history in Israel? Did I ever say there were Palestinians 4,000 years ago???

            I only went back to 1918 to illustrate that every map in the civilized world called it "Palestine." So, Horowitz's omission of that fact, and his claim that there never was such a place is, at best, geographically ignorant.

    • penni

      Hey Trickyblain,

      Your parents must have been from the sixties and never left? You seem to be a very sheltered little girl and a follower at BU, with no idea about the faces of reality! You should register at Berkley? The REAL WORLD IS NOT MADE OF ROSES, FLOWER CHILDREN and OH! No one is trying to Kill Americans!! No one is trying to push Sharea law here,oh no.Gosh did I spell Sharea wrong? I'm so sorry Tricky! You are more intellegent than the rest of us! Ask the family and friends who were killed by terrorists on 911. Ask the people around the world who live in fear every day because of TERRORISM! You are arrogant, vulger and rude! Horowitz was an activist in the 60's and guess what reality set in and he grew up! You my dear are one of the big problems we are having in this county! FREE SPEACH is not "crap!" You were free to write your "CRAP" Try it in a Commie., Socialist, Marxist Country!

    • fmobler

      I mostly agree with your complaint about Horowitz's clumsy rhetoric making it easier to dismiss sound, principled conservative arguments. But then, once a radical, always a radical, I suppose.

      I have to call you out on one thing you keep repeating. You say in various replies that citations, etc. are the "stuff U folks are looking for when publishing." Have you looked at a student-run newspaper in the last 30 years? Their connection to scholarship, let alone mere good journalism, is vaporous. You may be right that the BU people did us defenders of Israel a favor, but don't kid yourself that the newspaper is run by a bunch of budding scholars. Their rejection of one piece of (badly written and designed) propaganda out of all others was ideological.

  • http://www.fxexchangerate.com/ fxgeorges

    Really BU '09? Do you truly think I would have put that in there if it wasn't completely relevant? And that I'm motivated by page views? Muckraker was a joke – noted. Thought I mentioned that. But the discrepancy I identified back then was certainly not.

  • michiganruth

    note to commenters: don't waste your time trying to talk sense to trolls like tricky. they're not here to learn, they're here to broadcast their hate to an audience they know will be offended by it. don't pay them any mind.

    anyway, their moms are going to make them get off the computer pretty soon, it's a school night.

    • penni

      You are so right!! It, has no life!

  • joel

    Oh trickyblain, you say"I am a stanch proponent of conciseness and directness". Maybe "stanch" is concise and direct in the loose lips language,but it is not in ours:English. Anyone for "staunch"? Thanks.

  • ze-ev ben jehudah

    Kol od balewav p'nima Nefesh Jehoedi homija. Oel fa-ate mizrach kadima
    Ajin le Tzion tsofia.—-Erets Tzion w.roesjalajim.
    Now I know,where to go,where my folks proudly stand. Let me go to that precious
    promised land.No more left,no more right, lift your head and see the light I'm
    proud can't you see,for at last I'm free.No more wandering for me.
    Am Jisroel chai.

  • ydroustan

    I am neutral. I see a problem however with the censorship at the Boston University Daily Free Press. I don't know the causes of this censorship but it strikes me as a strong mentality of hate to the Jewish position and a total disregard of the facts. ydroustan

  • tanstaafl

    Is anyone else amused by the student newspaper's name? Daily Free Press. I'm dying here.