The publication caused a furor among students and administrators, and the Chancellor of the University disagreed with the publication, using one of the common arguments that circumvents the accusation that one is against free speech, by claiming that publishing them is “irresponsible.”

I believe that the DI could have engaged its readers in legitimate debate about the issues surrounding the cartoons' publication in Denmark without publishing them. It is possible, for instance, to editorialize about pornography without publishing pornographic pictures. The right of free speech and a free press are core values in American society, and I believe in them wholeheartedly. Yet the right to publish incendiary material does not mean a publication must publish that incendiary material.

Acton and his Opinions Editor responded.

Gordon was suspended from his duties as editor, so was not able to continue his coverage by involving the Muslim community in dialog.

we had plans to immediately start publishing a guest column from the president of the Muslim Student Association. I was going to have the opinions page opened up for a lot more coverage, and to get reporters covering the local reaction. But since I was served with my suspension notice on Tuesday morning, I’ve been unable to make any of that happen. Important to note … the editors of the DI will now have coverage in the newspaper almost three weeks after I originally published the cartoons.

Gordon started a blog to tell his side of the story. Responses in the comments and by some editorials were divided, with those criticizing his action mostly engaging in ad hominem attacks.

The publisher (who is part of the University administration) claims that the issue is not free speech, but failure to consult with the newspaper staff. Gordon counters that it is not customary for a chief editor to consult with staff about publishing a story or editorial. Also:

they felt like they were kept out of the loop on this whole thing, but my editorial board fully knew what was happening in the newsroom that night. Everybody had an opportunity to look at it, everybody had an opportunity to object to me doing it, or raising red flags, or telling me their concerns. And nobody did that.

The publisher also engages in a bit of gratuitous character defamation.

His focus, as expressed directly to his staff and myself, is for the media attention he is receiving personally for his courageous move in being first (second/third?) to run the cartoons in his paper, not for the need to publish an excellent newspaper worthy of its reputation.

Gordon says that much of the controversy is fueled by fear.

After the Mohammad cartoons were published, I got phone calls from people asking me why I would put them at physical risk. Parents of Daily Illini staff members wrote letters expressing their concerns for the safety of their children. Illini Media Company began to enact safety precautions and put the staff on alert for anything suspicious. One staffer was worried about the DI office being firebombed.

Neither Chuck nor I ever received a single threatening phone call, note or email. We have never been hassled as we’ve walked on campus. That’s not to say that some people weren’t angry and vocal. There were definitely a number of Muslim students who felt that it was wrong to publish the cartoons. And they let us know about it. We’ve had some good and some not so good conversations. But the good news is that the conversations are still going on. A real dialogue rather than the paternalistic patter about “sensitivity” to feelings. That attitude treats Muslims as less than grown ups. That they are more fragile than the rest of us and have to be indulged. In a deeper sense the paternalism of the “sensitivity crowd” and their fear of Muslims prevent people with Islamic backgrounds from occupying their rightful space in the public square.

Muslim students, families and faculty are some of the strongest, smartest and most accomplished people on this campus and in this community. They can stand up for themselves very well.

Let’s stop this fear. Let’s stop patronizing people. Let’s get into real dialogue as equals.

Also in his interview with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: No, but I mean, has anyone told you that’s the reason they’re upset, fear of reprisal?

AG: Well, not that specifically, but that has been voiced to me by quite a few people, yeah. I had a staff meeting on Monday, and pretty much my entire newsroom was there, and that was one of the major things that was brought up. The other thing that was brought up was that a lot of people feel like they will not be able to get jobs or be able to work in a career now, because they work for a newspaper that has been branded as just distributing hate speech. [emphasis mine]

A fellow blogger notes that - responding to the request by the publishers of the newspaper (the administration of the University) - that Google removed the cached version of the Daily Illini's publication of the cartoons.

The Socialist Worker Online was one of the entities which approved of Gordon's suspension.

Kiyoshi Martinez, former Night Editor of the paper - gives his version of events:

I feel that I should disclose what tiny role I had in the publication of the cartoons and also give my thoughts on whether or not The Daily Illini should have published them.

The day prior, Gorton approached me in private to ask my opinion of how to publish the cartoons, and whether or not to do it. I agreed then, and I agree now that we would not have done anything wrong to publish the “offensive” cartoons for our readers to be more educated.

I gave my simple advice, saying that if the cartoons were to be published by us, we should take a more intellectual and informative approach. This would include perhaps a Point/Counter-point columns from our staff columnists saying whether or not newspapers should continue to publish the cartoons. It should have an Editor’s Note explaining our decision to publish them. It also would probably be a good idea to accompany a story about the historical, social and religious context of why Muslims find these cartoons offensive and educate our readers on the Islamic faith and the prophet Muhammad. And finally, we should definately encourage dialogue from our readers; first by encouraging them to write in with their own opinions and also perhaps host open meetings to further debate on campus about first amendment issues.
As you can see, parts of my advice were taken, parts were ignored. Others may crop up at a later date. Ultimately, the choice of how to do things does fall on the Editor in Chief, Gorton, and what happened… happened. For better or worse, The Daily Illini will have to deal with the consequences, good or bad.

TheSquire lays out a different version of events, and also believes that Gordon should have consulted the staff and “contextualized” the cartoons.

The new acting editor seems very eager to please.

You can support Gordon's legal defense by sending checks to:

Acton Gorton Defense Fund
c/o Junaid Afeef
Afeef law Offices, Ltd.
2300 Barrington Rd. Suite 400
Hoffman Estates, Illinois 60195