" The press has an obligation to provide the public with a wide variety of viewpoints in order to ensure public debate and accurate information. If a certain piece of information is withheld from the public as a result of its controversial content, this constitutes unfair censorship. The general principle of the press is to promote knowledge rather than censorship. Hence, information that could cause disagreement should not be withheld on those grounds alone. On the other hand, the press in general also has a duty to society in terms of providing accurate information. The advertisement is in direct opposition to generally accepted facts regarding slavery. Hence publishing it on the strength merely of publishing whatever opinion is paid for could be considered unethical in terms of balanced and fair information provision. Particularly, the audience of the publication in question should also be considered. If the audience is for example generally black, one cannot endorse the publication of a piece that could be considered as racist or in some other way socially harmful.

2. Ethical Theory

John Rawl's Veil of Ignorance theory appears to address the matter adequately. This theory requires a social contract among parties that are assumed to be equal. Hence, in the situation at hand, it is advisable to consider the statements made in the publication on the strength of their value when they are divorced from social or racial issues.

The statements themselves must then be considered for their value in terms of publication and society. Questions regarding the veracity of the statements and probable public reaction should be considered without considering the actual situation. A "veil" should be drawn over the actual situation, which will then reveal the best course of action.

In this case, it appears the statements are made simply to start...

Furthermore, they are not accepted historical truths, but appear to be the opinion of a certain portion of society that could be deemed to be prejudiced against other major sectors of society.
On the strength of this, it can be surmised that the statements could be harmful to a major portion of the public, and should therefore not be published. When the veil is lifted, it is also clear that a certain demographic audience for the publication of the statements should be considered. Although the press should therefore promote free speech, this should be done with a sense of responsibility.

3. Defending my Position

In communicating my position, I would suggest to my publication firm that the publication of the proposed advertisement is not in the best interest of the public. The reason for this is that it does not reveal a specific, unknown truth. It is an opinion that could prove inflammatory, particularly if certain types of demographic readers are concerned. Furthermore, it is merely an opinion, but appears to be published as fact.

In the interest of free speech, however, one might suggest that it be published in a public opinion column, where it is clearly meant as opinion to spark possible public debate. As an advertisement, however, it appears to be somewhat inappropriate for the platform provided. Furthermore, a paper that publishes it on the premise of a paid advertisement appears to be not entirely ethical; accepting money for an opinion posing as fact.

In conveying my opinion, I would then first approach the editor-in-chief of the paper concerned. I would suggest that, if the opinion is to be published, it should be done so under a different premise than a paid advertisement. It should be appropriate both to the audience and the paper of its publication.