Unprincipled and hypocritical might have been a better description of the approach, but this being an objective news piece, "nuanced" is, I suppose, somewhat understandable.
The nuanced approach to the competing rights of free speech and responsibility has led to criticism from right-wing and libertarian quarters in the West.
In the United States, writer Christopher Hitchens launched into the State Department spokesman in these terms: "How appalling for the country of the First Amendment [protecting the freedom of the press] to be represented by such an administration."
Less understandable is Reynolds' apparent belief that Christopher Hitchens occupies right-wing or libertarian quarters. While it is certainly true that Hitchens has been a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and hence, at least in that respect, a supporter of President Bush, a man who laments the loss of his association with socialism "like a lost limb", continues to think that redistributing wealth is a good thing, and who still speaks of his associates as "comrades", can hardly be characterized as a man of the right.
Even more absurd is the implication that he can be counted among libertarians, who actually oppose wealth redistribution even more than those on the political right, and whose representatives, from the mainstream establishment down to the uncompromising fringes, were entirely opposed to the one thing that Hitchens has been most outspoken in supporting...the Iraq war.
Now, it is certainly true that this a very minor point within the context of Reynolds' overall piece, the value of which hardly rested upon the incorrect characterization of Hitchens' political sympathies. But if the BBC cannot be trusted to grasp the difference between an anti-capitalist who argues from leftist principles for the invasion of Iraq, and laissez-faire capitalists who argue against that very same invasion, just what can it be trusted to grasp?