From time to time we get complaints about images that readers of fresnobee.com use as "avatars" -- little pictures that appear with each of their comments on stories. One avatar that draws particular anger is a photo of President Obama manipulated to give him clown makeup suggestive of that worn by Heath Ledger as the Joker in last year's "Batman" movie. One user recently asked: Why does The Bee allow such an image on its site?

The reader wrote:

... [the] profile picture of Obama in reverse blackface is remarkably offensive and racist. Per the Bee's rules of posting it is a racial slur (what if President Bush were done in blackface?) as well as defamatory and false. Even if taken as the "joker" from the movie "The Dark Knight", that character was a homicide killer who destroy a hospital and kills with glee. President Obama wanting to be a white person and a homicidal killer... how can one even start to have a civil debate with a profile picture like that? There are young people reading this site (as well as advertisers)... is that the kind of thing the Bee really wants to identify with? What if I were to profile pic President Bush as Hitler, would that be acceptable?

Certainly some images -- pornography, for example -- must be removed. But this avatar, while offensive to some, is really just a political comment. And that is what this site is for: to allow the exchange of opinion on public issues.

Two facts weigh into this decision. First, the image is widely seen on signs in political rallies. It has become an emblem of sorts for some who criticize the White House.

Second, the target is a very public figure. And it's only fair to set a higher bar for criticism of public figures. We'd be far less tolerant of offensive words or pictures that ridicule a private individual; public servants seek out the spotlight and must be expected to take a certain amount of abuse.

Is the image racist? That seems like a stretch. Because the colors are reversed, it does suggest a black man in white makeup, but so what? The Joker lipstick is far more noticeable, a clear visual link to the common critique that the president is a clown.

Would we allow a picture of President Bush as Hitler? Yes, particularly if that was a theme of political discourse.

Does it coarsen the site and drive away readers and advertisers? I don't know. I agree that the tone of commentary on our site often is ugly. But often it is inspiring. That is the nature of free speech. Our philosophy is to ban words or images only when the reasons are compelling.

There are, of course, limits to what can be said even about the president. A patently racist or threatening image, for example, would be off limits. But this case doesn't meet that test.