"Taser this: F-- Bush. This was a controversial and concise editorial that appeared in the Colorado State University paper, The Rocky Mountain Collegian, last Monday, and has subsequently made national news. Since the appearance of these four words, the paper has received a threatening phone call from an angry reader; its advertising revenue has, according to a CNN article, gone down by $30,000; and there have been calls for the editor in chief to resign. This raises, once again, the issue of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and how far it ought to extend.

Put very simply, free speech and freedom of the press are vital necessities for an open and free society. While limits can and should exist on certain types of speech, they should be as unrestrictive as possible. In my mind, these restrictions include speech that directly threatens injury or death to a person or group of persons, or that advocates that such action be taken. Absent such extraordinary circumstances however, there should be little, if any, regulation of speech.

However, there was absolutely nothing wrong with the businesses removing ads from the newspaper. While it is certainly economic pressure on the paper based on its point of view, the businesses are well within their rights to decide where they wish to spend their advertising dollars. If they don't want to advertise in a publication that holds views opposite their own, it is their choice, and this should not be seen as an illegitimate attempt at censorship.

The Rocky Mountain Collegiate's mission statement says that the paper should serve as a public forum "where students have the only authority to make content decisions." Advertisers can't determine what the paper prints.

The calls for?editor in chief J. David McSwane, to resign, however, are over the top. While it is possible to argue that he should have had the possible consequences in mind when he published this, there is a fallacy to that argument. If an editor is expected to resign any time something is published that greatly offends people, what sort of freedom exists? The answer, quite simply, is none. If exercising a freedom will always or usually result in an adverse outcome, this is no freedom at all. A freedom implies the ability to undertake an action with some level of impunity, and if the action always leads to negative responses, it cannot rightly be called a freedom.

It is a writer's right to make a political statement in the manner he or she chooses, and there should be no punishment administered, or called for, for such an action.

This does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that I would have written or, if I had the editorial authority, even approved the aforementioned editorial. I don't particularly like expletives and try to avoid them at all times-for example, the absence of the full quote at the beginning of this column.

Expletives are an easy way out, used when one doesn't have the ability or desire to fully think out a well-couched argument or point of view. Thus, while they do make a point quite boldly, they can in fact actually detract from the intended goal. Instead of the editorial being looked at as a scathing attack on the president-which, while brief, it most certainly was-for many, it has been turned into a debate on speech and its limits, thereby completely removing focus from, the content.

Even though I disagree with the manner in which the editorial expressed its point of view, it's imperative that the freedoms of speech and of the press be upheld. They are an important foundation of a free society and ought not to be impinged upon.