Our View: Freedom of expression? Yes, but …

Strong opinions often stretch the tolerance of Americans to embrace free speech, even among people who would normally call themselves supporters of the First Amendment. Yet two acts of speech over the past several weeks -- one involving a controversial talk radio personality, the other a controversial comic strip -- have demonstrated why we must embrace the right of all Americans to speak their minds, and how to respond to speech we deem to be offensive.

As a talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh has crossed the lines of civility on repeated occasions. The latest example is his use of the words "slut" and "prostitute" to describe a young woman testifying before Congress.

Limbaugh was rightly condemned for his comments, lost a number of advertising sponsors and was forced to offer a half-hearted apology.

But that's not enough for some of his critics. MoveOn.org has recently launched a petition drive to get Limbaugh off the air in many cities. Limbaugh's supporters, in turn, have accused MoveOn of attempting to "censor" the conservative radio host.

Allegations of censorship have also arisen as many newspapers nationwide weighed whether to run Garry Trudeau's Doonesbury strip last week. The series used graphic imagery and words to mock a Texas law requiring women to have an ultrasound before getting an abortion.

Some papers chose to run the controversial series in its usual spot on the comics pages; some moved it temporarily to the opinion pages; and others opted not to run it at all -- a decision that resulted in some readers accusing them of censoring Trudeau, regardless of the fact that the strips could easily be viewed online.

The debate offers a good lesson on what constitutes censorship and what doesn't. As defined by Webster's, a censor is "an official with the power to examine publications, movies, television programs, etc., to remove or prohibit anything considered obscene, libelous, politically objectionable, etc." By definition, censorship involves a government act to limit objectionable forms of speech, a frequent occurrence in China, Iran, North Korea and other authoritarian regimes.

In free countries, newspapers and broadcast outlets have the right to determine what kind of opinions they do or do not want to publish or air.

Thus, declining to disseminate a certain opinion does not constitute censorship.

That said, in a free country, readers and listeners should expect their media outlets to provide space and airtime so publication and broadcast decisions can be criticized. That's why each day we set aside space for letters -- including ones that are critical of us, such as last week's print and online letters deriding our Doonesbury decision.

Read more from the original source:
Our View: Freedom of expression? Yes, but ...