Sparked by a series of cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the heated discussion of free speech and religious sensitivity reached the Harvard campus last week, as the Harvard Salient chose to reprint the now-infamous depictions of the prophet Muhammad. It is disappointing to see the violence that the publication of these cartoons has caused around the globe, and we are glad to see that the debate at Harvard has assumed a more civil (although still passionate) tenor. While not every newspaper editor would feel comfortable reprinting these images—for different newspapers have inherently different approaches to covering he news—the Salient’s decision to publish them warrants commendation, as it reflects their commitment to an informed public and a free press.

The Salient’s reprinting furthered the free-speech debate by informing students about the actual images that proved so provocative in the Middle East. In order for there to be productive debate on the merits of the cartoons and their publication, citizens (and Harvard community members) must actually see the images rather than accept mere second-hand accounts of their supposed religious insensitivity. The Salient’s bold move threw these cartoons into the limelight, as any student who glanced at the issue’s back page was forced to confront the images of the Prophet.

When any paper chooses to publish these cartoons—be it the Salient, or Jyllands-Posten, or any other newspaper—we support that right. The marketplace functions only with a free and uninhibited press and on the inviolable premise that valuable and meritorious thought will naturally win favor. This is not to say that newspapers should disregard entirely their sensitivities towards various groups, but to practice outright self-censorship in the name of religious sensitivity and toleration not only hampers the free exchange of the marketplace of ideas but also suggests a surrender to the very self-censorship that Jyllands-Posten hoped to confront in its initial publication of these cartoons.

We certainly recognize that many readers have found these cartoons to be offensive. But the content of an image or the tone of its public reception should not be grounds for censorship, be it self-imposed or not. The Salient, like any other publication, has the right to choose its own editorial content.

In the case of the Salient in particular, we must examine the Danish cartoons in the context in which the Salient displayed them. They were accompanied by editorial text and placed alongside other anti-Semitic cartoons that have already been published by Arab-language newspapers—and this juxtaposition was specifically intended to foster dialogue about religious censorship rather than blatantly offend readers.

This also begs the question of why offensive Muslim images have caused such furor, both among some readers on campus and abroad, when similarly offensive anti-Semitic cartoons have provoked little to no response. This discrepancy empirically reiterates the need for wide-ranging discussions on religion and censorship that the cartoons initially raise.

While the Salient is certainly commendable in its bold publication, we recognize that The Crimson’s choice to not publish may seem hypocritical on its face. Inherent in our advocacy of free press, however, is the understanding that the choice to publish is a newspaper’s own prerogative. The Salient by nature is a different publication than the Crimson, with a different audience and tone. Its advocacy of free speech took form in its reprinting the cartoons. The Crimson instead has chosen to express its position in a discussion of the issue, rather than a reprinting, which at this point in the controversy would neither further inform the public nor the debate.