I once wrote an editorial that referenced the name of the slave in “Huckleberry Finn,” but I had to write around it, just as I am now. The mere sight of the word was deemed too hurtful and inflammatory. The character is portrayed sympathetically, but context didn’t matter.

If there is a controversy swirling around the use of this word, most newspapers will describe the word, but won’t print it. Is this reasonable or cowardly?

Some people are calling newspapers in America and abroad “cowards” for not printing some Charlie Hebdo cartoons as an act of solidarity against the terrorist attack. Words and cartoons of support won’t suffice. But how those depictions of Muhammad anger Muslims isn’t well-understood. They are crude and offensive, intentionally so. The prophet posed pornographically, for instance.

New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet ruled against publication, which sparked pointed public criticism. As he explained to Politico, “We don’t run things that are designed to gratuitously offend. Obviously I don’t expect all to agree. But let’s not forget the Muslim family in Brooklyn who read us and is offended by any depiction of what he sees as his prophet.”

However, the post-attack cover of Charlie Hebdo depicting Muhammad respectfully is being widely disseminated. The Spokesman-Review printed it on Thursday. In this case, context was everything. But it will still offend.

Publishing standards are maddeningly subjective. Editors weigh shifting and conflicting community values. I was once admonished for allowing into print a four-letter word for passing gas. To my bosses, it wasn’t even a close call. In my defense, I was new to town.

Pornography publisher Larry Flynt was shot in the middle of a First Amendment battle, but newspapers didn’t reprint pictures from Hustler as a show of solidarity. That’s easy to understand, because we know the nature of those images.

Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum writes, “If an extremist gay rights lunatic murdered a dozen members of the Westboro Baptist Church, would we all start showily plastering ‘God Hates Homosexuals’ on our websites?” (Slur paraphrased for mainstream publication.)

“I am Westboro” as a show of solidarity for free expression? I think not. We can defend free speech without hosting the message.

On the other hand, being overly sensitive creates its own problems. In Australia, printing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons could lead to prosecution because they violate the country’s hate-crime codes. Under the law, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, “it is unlawful to ‘offend, insult, humiliate’ a person or group of people on the basis of race, color or ethnic origin.”

A columnist who accused fair-skinned people of choosing aboriginal status for personal gain was convicted based on the statute. The case hinged on whether it was reasonable to assume that a class of people could be offended.

In our country, college students can be sanctioned for violating repressive speech codes. Politicians gain favor by trying to prohibit flag-burning. Thirteen states, including Idaho, have passed “food disparagement” laws to protect businesses. Our culture of complaint is tireless, and arbiters often overreact. Liberals and conservatives have decided there are instances when hurt feelings and lost profits supersede free expression.

The Charlie Hebdo cartoons don’t pose a new problem; they draw on a long-standing debate. So what do you think the standards should be in a land of diversity? It’s a complicated question, not a simple matter of courage.