Re the last page of the January 31 issue [an ad appearing to show a hotel housekeeper seducing a guest]:

I always read City. It is the root of what this city is all about culturally, socially, and politically.

But that last page.

Women work so hard to be respected and recognized as intelligent and formidable individuals.

But that last page.

First of all, it is disrespectful to the professional housekeepers who value their position.

Second, it depicts women housekeepers as prostitutes.

Third, it is disrespectful to women in general.

Please reconsider before running this ad again.

Ginny Cassetta, Cypress Street, Rochester

The editor's response: The ad, placed by the City of Toronto, is one of a series running in US alternative newspapers near the Canadian border. It has apparently created quite a stir in Toronto, where some residents responded as you have.

The purpose of the ad, we're told, is to try to convince people that Toronto's not a gray and stodgy place. (We're wondering why they think we think Toronto's gray and stodgy.)

On the heels of Cassetta's complaint about the Toronto ad came a telephone complaint about a series of cigarette ads we've just begun running. Cigarettes, as surely everyone in the United States knows by now, are an addictive, highly dangerous product. Why, then, would we run the ads?

Like most newspapers, we have a commitment to freedom of speech --- not just for ourselves, but for readers and for advertisers. We are in the business of fostering communication, not suppressing it. Obviously, sometimes that communication is offensive -- or offensive to some people. But where should newspapers draw the line? If we support abortion rights, should we refuse to take ads from organizations that oppose them? And should a publisher who opposes abortion rights refuse to take ads from Planned Parenthood?

What about political ads? If we are strongly opposed to particular candidates for public office --- and we often are --- should we refuse to publish their ads and deny our readers access to their message through our pages?

We are also committed to fostering knowledge. If companies are promoting a product, or a politician is spreading a message, shouldn't readers know about that? Is the public better informed by knowing what others in the community are up to --- including those whose messages we dislike?

Newspapers are sometimes accused of putting profit ahead of principle. But freedom of the press (and providing the public with access to that freedom) is one of our most important principles. And just as an aside: We frequently lose ads from businesses that are upset by ads that we take; we lost one, in fact, because of the Toronto ad.