Paul Curci's diatribe about the Inquirer's decision to print the "cartoon" seems misplaced [Slant, "Bennett's Choice," Feb. 16, 2006]. The media outlets that failed to show it were cowardly and self-serving for the same reason that terrorists are almost always referred to as insurgents, militias and guerrillas: to protect their reporters' asses from retribution. Since when is the criteria for publishing the likelihood of riots by offended parties?

I. Milton Karabell
Southwest Philadelphia

This is the only editorial I've read to date that echoes what I believe. The journalistic community should take a long, hard look at their motivations for publishing any potentially inflammatory material, whatever the medium. I can't help but think of depictions that came out of Nazi Germany and the ensuing outrage in the Western world. Caricatures of Mohammed only further put innocent people at risk (how many more 9/11s do we need?) and disrespect those in the Muslim community that believe hatred is not the answer. This commentary is something you should be proud of.

Cinthia Gana
Center City

"Bennett's Choice" was entirely predictable, both in its outrage and its target. Curci states that "if [we in the media] are out to piss on people or institutions because we can, then we're abusing our First Amendment privilege." Hmm, I guess we won't be reading any more anti-Bush editorials in City Paper then, huh?

The tenor of Curci's piece is symptomatic of the politically correct viewpoint that's so prevalent in the City Paper and other alternative newsweeklies, one that often reeks of a double standard. Some years back, a number of magazines printed photos of a controversial painting that depicted the Virgin Mary covered with excrement and sex organs. I wonder if the City Paper ran an editorial attacking the decision to show the painting?

Suppose a photograph of Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shooting his fellow hunter surfaces in the next week or so—will City Paper refrain from publishing it on the basis of not "insulting, demeaning or expressing hatred" toward the individual in question?

The cartoon in question is itself a news item. It's been the catalyst for riots, deaths and destruction around the world. Letting American readers see the actual cartoon for themselves is a legitimate journalistic response to this event, even if it upsets some of them.

Andy McIlvaine
Elkins Park

Thank you so much for the burst of sanity regarding the 2016 Olympics [Philly Blunt, "Five-Ring Circus," Brian Hickey, Feb. 16, 2006]. But Philadelphia is a city with newspapers that run sports as front-page news more days than not, and a city that is willing to throw money at its sports teams while turning its back on its children. So I am afraid that we will have to hope that Philadelphia is turned down on the merits, because chase after that tarnished gold it surely will.

Cherin Silver
Center City

As an educated African-American student at West Chester University, I am in full agreement with Commissioner Sylvester Johnson in [Philly Blunt, "380," Brian Hickey, Feb. 9, 2006]. The solution [to address rising violence] goes deeper than policing, and we're all responsible for figuring out how to make it stop.

We have to start off with baby steps and alter our way of thinking. How are we going to comply with police officials when we are growing up in a time where we are taught that the police are our enemies? How are we going to educate the black youth when their priority is to change their baby's diapers at the age of 15? We, as a black culture, need to demand control of our community! More educated blacks who are successful in making it out of the ghetto need not to forget their peers, but to educate them instead. The only way we are going to make it through this genocide is by education and hope.

Tasha Ho-Sang
Overbrook Park