The stunning disregard for freedom of expression that The Crimson staff expressed in condemning Cambridge City Hall for displaying two dildos and a photograph of a penis was topped only by its problematic reasoning ("Down With Porn," editorial, Oct. 12, 1994).

The Crimson staff applauded convicted felon and Cambridge City Councillor William H. Walsh, for removing the display from its case in City Hall. "Pornography is... not art," the editorial alleged. "It shouldn't be subsidized by taxpayer dollars, and it shouldn't be displayed on public property." This statement is bizarre, considering it has nothing to do with the issue. When did dildos become pornography?

Pornography, by definition, is "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). Possibly a picture of a man or a woman using the dildo, with bad lighting and lame composition, would be considered pornography. But are the dildos themselves pornography? Hardly. The photograph of the penis is at least a Photograph, but it's just a penis.

The staff goes on to complain that City Hall staffers have covered their tracks by saying a "jury of professional artists," and not the staffers, chose the items on display. Cambridge's elected officials have "sought to insulate themselves from controversy," claims The Crimson. This would appear so, and I am angered that Cambridge officials would not defend their own decision to exhibit the artwork. This is the one place I agree with the staffs editorial, for they go on to take a fascist stand.

The definitions of art and pornography are hotly debated topics. Most people just say, "Fine, I just don't went to pay for it with my taxes." I wish I could do that with aircraft carriers, Jesae Helms's salary and the racist death penalty system, but I can't.

I pay Helms's salary, because I am an American citizen who pays federal taxes and respects the right to free speech. I'd much rather have a dilde as a U.S. Senator than Jesse Helms, He's really offensive. However, he has every right to his views.

So does the artist who created the display. The city of Cambridge should not be condemned for presenting challenging idea. It should be applauded. Theodore K. Gideones '96