We’ve all heard about those Danish cartoons in the news these days. A series of one-panel, uncomplicated sketches, which with a few strokes of a pencil manage to imply that all Muslims are terrorists and depict the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head. As a result of these 12 cartoons, there has been rioting, arson and destruction throughout Europe and the Middle East. And on Feb. 16, the local Rhino Times reprinted them. Happy Valentine’s Day, Greensboro.

By acting in poor taste, the Rhino Times brings up an important point, somewhat accidentally. Is it wrong to reprint something offensive in an area where there are people who will be offended by it because it is news? Does the First Amendment apply when the material in question has led to so much violence and hate in the rest of the world?

On the one hand, our constitutional freedoms must always be protected because, frankly, they’re awesome. Nowhere in the world is there such sweeping protection for anyone who wants to say stupid, offensive things – thank you very much. And although the First Amendment “does not protect obscenity or hate speech,” according to some courts, the definition of such things is a slippery slope that could easily cost us some very interesting stories, music and movies.

On the other hand, however, is bad taste. And I’m not talking about “passing from the left” bad taste, I’m talking “crapping in the petunias” bad taste. Printing hate material, even under the guise of reporting the news, is still printing hate material.

These cartoons are offensive not just for their content, but for their very existence – they are base, unsophisticated and deliberately inaccurate caricatures of Muslims and the Islamic faith which are more disturbing in their ignorance than in their crude satire.

These cartoons, whether we like to admit it or not, are another First Amendment issue. We have to decide whether our constitutional freedoms end where someone’s religious sensibilities begin – or whether we have the right to print what we want, forget the body count, and always be backed by the fist of constitutional fury.

The answer is yes, we can print whatever we please. But we won’t, because we have a duty.

Let me give you another example. The Guilfordian has the option of printing these cartoons. The Guilfordian also has the option of running a centerfold in its next issue – “Guilford Honeys! Get ’em while they’re hot!”- and get a well-deserved kick in the face. It’s within our rights, but not within our reason. Instead, The Guilfordian strives to publish the best pieces we can get and be a trusted voice in our community – that’s our purpose.

Publishing those cartoons would be a betrayal of our community, offending Muslims and anyone with a good understanding of the religion. But at the same time, can we honestly deny our readers a look at what has caused such a ruckus in the rest of the world?

Yes, we can. Find them yourself, dear readers; 10 minutes with Google will satisfy your curiosity. It’s our duty to report, not to offend, and yours to find your own offensive material.