I would say yes, though I do not really understand what you mean by "all the new that's fit to print" in this context. Free speech in the domain of religion has always been much more controversial than the others (up until recently, very many books, films and other forms of art have been banned and restrticted by authorities in the Christian world as well.) Restraint as a result of insight and wisdom in belief systems can be necessary and not necessarily should be seen as censorship. We are always keen on not inciting violence in other contexts (terrorism, being one) and should therefore consult experts in theology and exercise outmost care. Meanwhile we have to be utterly aware of our role as mediators in free flow of ideas and let a debate in moderation flow, to inform the public.
I always advise, in cooperation with concerned editors, to consult with experts (not necessarily obey them, but pay attention to the 'grey areas') and pay attention to style, tone and proportion; focusing on the "reasonable sensitivities" of the community in question.
Ombudsmen could have a role to show the path of wisdom and moderation.

As I indicated before, for this emerging Dutch case, I would recommend that Dutch colleagues be reminded and enlightened by the spectacular case of Otto Preminger Institute vs Austria, in European Court of Human Rights, dated 1994. It is about blasphemy (as it woulşd be the case with the Dutch one) and it is also about a controversial film that attacks Christian values severely. In the verdict (link below) there is even a Dutch judge's view. Please read it carefully.

http://www.article19.org/pdfs/cases/austria-case-of-otto-preminger-v.-austria.pdf
…………

All the best, and good luck :)

Yavuz Baydar is columnist van de engelstalige Turkse krant Today's Zaman

- - - - - -

By Edward Wasserman

Dear Media-ombudsman The Netherlands,

After Yavuz first pointed out the '94 European Court of Justice ruling upholding the ban on the anti-religious Austrian satire, I read the case file and wrote the column I've taken the liberty of attaching here. I think, as I know Yavuz does, that the Danish case triggered an unfortunate wave of sanctimonious posturing about the endlessly tolerant West besieged by Muslim hysterics who are terrified of modernity and screaming for medieval justice. The Austrian case, which I found appalling, suggests that we need a healthy dose of humility in our approach to such matters, and my column suggests that we need to own up to our taboos before we assail people for theirs (and insist we're too broad-minded to have any.)
As for coverage, I agree with much of what is said, though I was amused by Jeffrey's students' suggestion of a "town meeting," which strikes me as a terrific idea, as long as I could get as far as possible out of town beforehand. I would only add that the treatment may be much less important than its prominence. It comes close to being an almost completely bullshit story, various demagogues and zealots shadowboxing for the cameras, striking poses about an insult that hasn't even been spoken, let alone suffered. No, it can't be ignored, but with Siobhan I'd urge very careful, restrained play and, as the wise old Greek guy said, moderation in all things, and a thoroughgoing recognition that we're all fallible.

Edward Wasserman
Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450

- - - - - -

Dear ombudsman -

By Jeffrey Dvorkin

I raised the issue in my class at Georgetown University. It¹s a graduate class in media ethics with some very experienced journalists who attend.
We think that there are two journalistic aspects to this problem.
First, there is a controversy and the public needs to know what it is and what it is about without necessarily getting into details that may be offensive to some citizens. The politician is obviously counting on the media to do his publicity for him. that¹s not our job, but it is our job to let the public know what is going on.
It¹s a fine line between informing the public and doing publicity, so it will be difficult to know when you have given out too little information or too much.
Second, the best way to handle this is to hold a ³town hall meeting.² The public broadcaster in collaboration with a newspaper could hold a public meeting to which members of the public would be invited and allowed to ask questions of the Mufti and the politician. Ideally, they should be together, if they are willing.
Other commentators, journalists and professors and other assorted wise persons could be there to guide the discussion and the Dutch Association of Ombudsmen could volunteer to moderate the discussion.
I think the greater danger is to ignore the issue in the hope that it will go away. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, they say.
If we as a society and a profession value free speech, we may have to allow it to occur, even when it is uncomfortable.
There is a danger that the media will end up being the enablers of extreme ideas, but knowing how sensible people ultimately are (both the Dutch and the Americans), I think it¹s worth the risk.

Best regards,
Jeffrey Dvorkin
Georgetown University

- - - - - -

Dear ombudsman,

By Siobhain Butterworth

My views and answers to your 3 questions:

1. There is more than one story here: the film and film-maker: the response of Sheikk Ahmad Badr al-Din Hassoun to it, the media response; the government response; allegations of media hype etc. All of them should be reported on the basis that the public has a right to know about them ;the question is whether the media are acting responsibly.
2. Based on its previous conduct I think the Guardian would publish a wide range of views on the issues and it would analyse the media hype. It would see this as a matter for discussion.
3. I think it's appropriate for the ombudsman to consider whether coverage of the issue overall (that is to say the whole coverage of a particular publication or broadcaster rather than isolated pieces) has been responsible and objective and whether the allegations of media hype are well-founded.

Siobhain Butterworth
Readers' editor
The Guardian