Surely we should accept that there are some works that should be censored or at least restricted in circulation. I know this is a shibboleth for USAians in general (whoops, there I go stereotyping) but two examples I have in mind would be "Mein Kampf" and "The Klansman".

Where Ake fails is in failing to observe that no case of statistical significance has been made regarding the racial characteristics he purports to perceive. What he reports seem to be three anecdotal observations. Not only is no statistical significance made out but also no causative relationship (whether as a matter of race or religion) is made out. All exploitation ought to be take seriously, whether it is sexual or other, and in the case of sexual exploitation, regardless of the race or sex of the exploiter or exploitee - but at the same time people have complex liberties and the difficulty is to evaluate the boundary at which one person's liberty unacceptably impinges upon that of another.

I would also observe that unless I have in haste misread, Ake cites the Sun, the Mail, the Times and the Telegraph - all of which are keen to seize on items for reportage that may be prayed in aid of a right-wing agenda, and the difference between two newspapers read by bigots and four newspapers read by bigots is hardly huge.   The Times alas has long fallen from its perch as an impartial reporter.