The editor claims First Amendment free-speech exemplars as justification for running an ad some might feel distasteful, and then proceeds to equivocate on the subtleties of free-speech claims on printing the "other side" of issues (The Mail, February 21).

Bush-wah!

President Bush said that the Intelligent Design theory should be given equal exposure with the theory of Evolution.

Newspapers have typically given more than equal time to detractors of global warming.

This is not the substance of free speech so much as an exemplar of "all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing."

What's wrong with taking a moral stand?

I am not amused by the blatant sex ads in the back pages, but I am not offended. I understand that it does take money to run a newspaper, and ads are a source of revenue.

At least be honest with the reason.

The justification of free speech can be over-used. "Should we refuse to publish [the ads of politicians we dislike] and deny our readers access to their message?" My answer, "Yes!"

Should a politician who has a back-room deal with a developer be denied access to the public through paid-for political ads?

Should reporting on that politician's specific back-room dealings be made public?

Should a right-wing, anti-Catholic candidate who promotes hate and divisiveness be denied promotional exposure?

It is not ads that make us free; it is the truth that makes us free.

R. Rapport, Rush

Editor Mary Anna Towler's comment: Wow. You want us to publish only those things which, in our omnipotence, we know to be the truth? Only those things that are consistent with our own personal morals?

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for publishing the truth. And I certainly believe there's such a thing as truth. I see it as bona fide truth, for example, that the Bush administration led us into war under false pretenses, and I've said so. I believe the administration is lying about its plans for Iran, and I've said so. But if readers send us letters taking the other side (and they have), I'm sure going to publish them. We'll publish ads supporting the Bush administration, too. I think our readers know that the publication of an ad doesn't imply the endorsement of the newspaper.

Among the dangers to America's future are media like Fox News, which tells only the truth as Fox News defines it. And if we all read only what reinforces our own opinions, we're in big trouble.