IT WAS Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing as SG Tellentyre, who coined the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Other versions state: Think for yourselves, and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too", and "Monsieur l'abbe, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."

These lines are as profound now as they were when first written, between 1770 and 1906.

South African media, and the Avusa Media Group in particular, faced a similar challenge recently when Eric Miyeni's column was terminated after he wrote that the editor of another newspaper, Ferial Haffajee was a "black snake in the grass", and that she would probably have been necklaced - the act of placing a burning tyre around a person's neck - in the 1980s.

For the record, this despicable and barbaric act was condemned by all right-thinking South Africans.

What was Haffajee's sin, for her to be so vilified?

Her newspaper has been running exposés on the finances of ANC Youth League president Julius Malema.

Does Miyeni have the right, in line with the principle above, to say his say, and should Avusa state that they would defend his right to make the statements he made?

Columnists carry a great responsibility. Their column content is invariably opinion, analytical or social commentary. One presumes all columnists are used for specific briefs, and very few are given carte blanche to "write what they like".

Reporters and editors perform a massive job of publishing a newspaper under pressure and on deadline.

The public expect columns to provide them with insight that it is not possible to provide in the hard news pages. Columnists are expected to be authoritative on their subjects of interest.

They must provide intelligent interpretation of issues and matters of public interest, and contribute to the provision of a diversity of opinion.

They have to avoid offence, and balance their own freedom of speech and expression with the responsibility that goes with these. But above all, they are expected to be fair and accurate, and not emotional which adds no value to the public discourse.

Editors do not necessarily have to agree with the views expressed. Implicit in columns is that this is a writer's opinion, but in publishing a view, editors would want to be comfortable and be able to defend the columnists' right to say what they said. It should also be in line with the values and codes of a publication.

Columnists are not expected to use the column to drive personal agendas. There would have been nothing wrong for Miyeni to have stated that he supports Malema's view on nationalisation of the mines, and to criticise Haffajee's newspaper, though the latter itself would have been undesirable - if you want to criticise a newspaper, write to that particular newspaper.

It might be a view that an overwhelming majority of members of the ANCYL agree with.

While editors might not agree with this view, they would defend his right to make such a statement - provided he contributes to the debate with an insight that would give the reader the opportunity to weigh up the facts and experiences in order to make a reasoned judgment.

It seems to me that in most of these areas, Miyeni fell short. It is significant that the readers who lodged complaints with me generally did not necessarily express support for Miyeni's view, but argued on the principle and rather challenged the action taken by Avusa Media.

Many wanted to know why Miyeni's column had been discontinued, while no action, at the time, had been taken against the editors who were in charge of the paper and who ought to have made sure that matters about which the newspaper felt strongly did not make the news pages.

They referred to other incidents involving Avusa newspapers: the termination of the columns of Dave Bullard (Sunday Times) and Kuli Roberts (Sunday World). In both incidents no action was taken against the editors, they argued.

Len Maseko, acting editor of Sowetan, acted commendably. He told me: "I take full responsibility for this fiasco. Even though I was weekend off, the buck still stops with me. The point is, I did not watch when I was supposed to."

He followed this up with stepping down from the editorship.

Brave, indeed. Haffajee herself was humble in her response, and described the man who vilified her as a "thought leader" she had admired.

But Miyeni apparently refuses to accept that he went overboard. He does not seem to understand that he abused a very privileged position - that of being given a platform to speak to the nation.

Some readers point out that he had a similar personal go at Lebo Mashile over her weight - as if that was a matter of national importance.

Did Avusa handle the matter in the best way possible?

For me, the answer is no.

Clearly, in the case of Sowetan, there was a system failure. The same system failure that resulted in Roberts' column passing the gate. And the same system failure that led to the Bullard episode.

Structurally, this is not what is supposed to happen. But there does seem to have been a failure on the part of the humans who are supposed to watch - and they let their team down.

In my view, the decision to terminate the column was ill-timed, and they should have known what the consequences, in terms of response, would be.

This does not suggest that Miyeni is therefore correct in suggesting he did nothing wrong. The column had a lot of emotional appeal for sections of the South African population, but little logical and ethical substance.

There is a whole lot wrong: he abused a position of trust, a privileged position, by using the column to launch personal attacks on people. That is not what columns are there for, and certainly, I am assured, this is not what Sowetan - and other Avusa publications - stand for.