The Only Way Is Ethics: It's a newspaper's job to reflect a spectrum of opinion, even when that disturbs

Plus: James Bond is not a sensitive subject

Silhouette of a man with a notebook (Rex)

Most newspapers employ a stable of columnists with different takes on the world. Their opinions and analyses enliven pages, provoke debate and sometimes spark a backlash. The Independent is no exception: indeed, as the newspaper that at one time employed both Mark Steel and Nigel Farage as regular contributors, it should be clear that we like to cover all bases.

Yet the pages of print editions are finite. The voices might be disparate but they are limited in number as a matter of necessity. There is no such restriction online, where the Independent Voices section of our website hosts many more comment articles each day than it is possible to cram in the paper.

The ability to publish extra content does not mean there is less editorial oversight. Nonetheless, an online platform does lend itself to tackling controversial subjects. It can provide a forum for immediate responses by readers and we can run several pieces on the same subject. The fundamental right to freedom of expression has never been so empowered as by the rise of the internet.

So, in this golden age for free speech, are there still uncrossable boundaries? Hate speech that incites violence, of course, is unacceptable. Opinions that are premised on plainly inaccurate information should also be avoided by responsible publishers.

Otherwise – if we believe genuinely that freedom of expression is important – we should encourage debate even on the most contentious issues.

In the light of recent scandals, questions about the prevalence – or otherwise – of predatory paedophiles in our midst are clearly topical. On Thursday, we published a piece on that subject by the eminent psychologist Glenn Wilson, who argued that we should not be paranoid about paedophiles; that we need to keep a sense of proportion. Many people who feel attracted to children do not, he said, act on those feelings. Conversely, much sexual abuse of minors is committed by “non-paedophiles”, often parents or friends of the victim, who are not specifically attracted to children. I confess to finding that a rather academic distinction.

Dr Wilson’s views provoked quite a response – and vehement disagreement from a number of readers and campaigners. Indeed, we ran a contrary view on the site on Friday. But none of that means we should not have given space for the airing of his argument.

Even so, this case demonstrated clearly that, with sensitive topics, the specifics of tone and content are vital. For instance, Dr Wilson claimed that some paedophiles he had studied turned their feelings to social good – becoming teachers or social workers, “where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse”.

Now I’m a full-on, signed-up, bleeding-heart liberal, so please forgive me, but that’s one of the creepiest things I’ve ever heard.

James Bond is not a sensitive subject

This may dent my liberal credentials yet further but I cannot bear a spoiler bore. One reader was incensed that in Oscar Quine’s piece about test-driving the Jaguar C-X75, which appears in the new Bond movie, Spectre, there were, without warnings, two references to minor plot details. No indication of how the film turns out but, still, it appears the reader’s sky fell in at the “revelations”. I haven’t seen Spectre yet but – spoiler alert – Bond will beat the baddie, get the girl(s), blow stuff up and drink monumental quantities of booze without any side effects. If that’s ruined it for you, I don’t apologise.