Students sit in at UNC newspaper to protest cartoon

A group of students staged a sit-in Monday night at the offices of The Daily Tar Heel, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's student newspaper, calling for its editors to print an apology for running a cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad.

The DTH published the cartoon Feb. 9. Its publication came during an ongoing, violent uprising in protest of Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten's decision to print cartoons of Muhammad.

The group of about 20 UNC students said they would not leave the DTH offices until Ryan Tuck, editor-in-chief, agreed to apologize.

"Though I apologize to anyone personally offended by the image's publication, I will not apologize that it was printed," Tuck wrote in his online editor's blog.

If there is no apology issued, protest organizers said they will call for the DTH to withdraw support from the paper.

The protesters were permitted to remain in the newspaper offices so long as they were not in the way.

The Muslim Students Association at UNC did not endorse the protest.

Court will not hear case about college newspaper reviews

The Supreme Court declined Tuesday to decide whether university administrators can censor campus newspapers by insisting they be approved by the administration before publication.

The justices refused to hear an appeal brought by three students in a case questioning the First Amendment free speech protection for reporters and editors at college newspapers.

Two editors and a reporter at the Innovator, the student newspaper at Governor's State University in University Park, Ill., published articles in 2000 criticizing the administration. One centered on the decision not to extend to contract of the newspaper's adviser.

In response, an administrator called the newspaper's printer and asked for it not to print any copies of the Innovator unless approved by the university. The students, however, refused to submit any of their work for approval, and three subsequently sued the school's dean of student affairs and other officials for maintaining an unconstitutional system of prior restraint.

The case was dismissed in federal court.

Attorneys for the students said in the appeal that the initial ruling "threatens to restrict substantially the freedom of expression on college and university campuses throughout the nation."