To the editor:

Joseph Pisani's column "Free expression demands respect" was breathtakingly inane and illogical (Advocate editorial page, Feb. 17).

He approvingly quotes a Muslim who wrote that the media "must balance their right to free speech with their duty to guard the religious sensitivities of all religions." Wrong! Nothing in our Constitution or history speaks of this duty. If a group does not like what a paper runs, its members can write letters, cancel subscriptions, contact advertisers and express their views in a civil, non-threatening manner. They cannot demand a blanket exemption from scrutiny, comment and even ridicule.

Speaking of objectionable material, let's look at that same issue of The Advocate. Page B1 had a Los Angeles Times article about Vanity Fair exposing the "naked truth of female-male relations." The article featured the magazine's cover with two nude young women and Tom Ford, the "decidedly gay fashion designer." Elsewhere, The Advocate published ads for "Brokeback Mountain" and "Capote," two movies touching on gay themes. Some groups may be deeply upset by articles and ads that feature nudity or cast homosexuality in a positive light. Do they get a veto over The Advocate's contents?

When Pisani writes that "the issue is whether [artists and writers] use that freedom to debase the beliefs of millions of people for purely gratuitous reasons -- or to make a buck," he opens his own paper to charges of behaving exactly like that. If he looks kindly on the need for "responsible" journalism regarding Mohammed cartoons, will he be so inclined when groups express rage on other issues? Will he decline to publish articles or take advertising for that wicked anti-Catholic movie he so detests, "The Da Vinci Code"?