Respectfulness, full coverage are not mutually exclusive

I find your recent refusal to publish cartoons for religious reasons deeply disturbing and highly illogical. As Paul McMasters recently writes: “Though we should worry about expression that crosses a line, we also must concern ourselves about the difference between responsibility and fear -- the danger of sensitivity becoming silence.”

I think you owe your readers an apology for sacrificing our most important freedom for anyone’s religious principles, however well-intentioned. If your logic holds true (which it does not), then you are now operating on the premise that everything you publish must first be screened for religious offense, which will be impossible to achieve or defend. This leads to the more obvious problem of whose religious beliefs you will use to define offense, since many religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. Please help me understand which religious beliefs you intend to use to screen your stories, and who will define the offenses, so we can at least understand the censorship regimen you intend to apply to your news. -- Justin Pettis, M.A.

Executive Editor Vickie Kilgore: The Olympian has not been silent on the issue of the cartoons. We have published several reports on the international controversy. But repeating the images themselves is unnecessary. The Olympian is similarly careful about publishing ethnic slurs. Unless the content is truly essential to understanding an issue and the issue is valid and relevant for our readers, we choose a conservative approach respectful of our audience.