The Spectator is well within its rights to refuse the David Horowitz ad “Ten Reasons Why Reparations for Blacks is a Bad Idea for Blacks – and Racist, Too,” but some confusion has arisen over why.

The ad contains false and misleading information and is meant to promote racial animosity. Newspapers are not obligated under the First Amendment to accept paid advertisements for any reason; they can disagree with the ideas in the ad.

Christian newspapers won’t print ads for strip clubs or abortion rights rallies; conservative newspapers won’t print ads for liberal or left candidates.

They also can disagree with the content of the ad. For example, the false Holocaust “revisionist” ads that inflamed campus culture of the 1980s and 1990s, and which led to numerous attacks on synagogues, or racist ads.

Or newspapers can disagree with the intent. For example, revenge ads, like one that ran at Ohio State in 1989: A woman’s name and phone number was in an ad proclaiming she had AIDS; she did not, and she sued the paper for an undisclosed sum.

One must realize that the same ads are like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater; they fit in the “clear and present danger” exception to the First Amendment – an exception upheld several times.

The Horowitz ad, in particular, aims at an obscure intellectual issue, promotes it as mainstream in the black community and makes claims that are well known to be false by historians and statisticians. Horowitz, according to Clarence Page, is a professional intellectual bombthrower. He started off making fantastical claims against conservative parties and now makes them against more liberal targets.

He is more interested in generating publicity than rational debate.

There are two reasonable responses to ads like Horowitz’s: To print it with insertions spelling out the false or misleading information or not to print it at all. Printing it without explanation causes turmoil on campus and actually stifles debate by inflaming extreme forces on both sides. The ideal, on campus, is to cause debate, not allow psychos with agendas a forum.

Therefore, it would be better for Spectator policy to say clearly that they reject false, misleading, divisive or clearly threatening and obscene speech in ads. This policy would undermine the arguments of people who like conflict for conflict’s sake, instead of conflict to create a solution or consensus.

Such a policy also would protect The Spectator from the ill-formed attacks of people who do not understand the lesser protections the First Amendment gives to commercial speech. It would explain why the “Jonathan” ad is acceptable, while the Horowitz ad is not.

I applaud The Spectator’s decision to stand with newspapers that decided not to fall into the trap of publishing misleading ads for false free speech reasons. I hope the editors will continue to tread lightly in the national campus climate of leftist and rightest ads meant to promote division, not debate. It is a very fine line to tread, and a hard one for more experienced editors.

Extremists try to suck less experienced student newspaper staffs into these situations to take advantage of them.

We should understand how hard such decisions are.