The latest comtretemps began last weekend when The New York Times Magazine published a story about the Knicks in which Ward (as well as his teammate Allan Houston) used Biblical passages to make anti-Semitic comments. Ward is a born-again Christian who apparently never got the word (articulated for Catholics in Vatican II in the early 1960s and by other denominations over the years) that the Jews didn’t kill Jesus Christ. “They had blood on their hands,” he said.

While resurrecting this ancient and hugely destructive libel-a libel that has cost millions of Jewish lives over the centuries-Ward added: “Jews are stubborn.” Beyond the gross generalization-a common characteristic of bigotry-was Ward’s use of the present tense. That’s the giveaway that he’s an anti-Semite. The implication is that Jews still “are” responsible for something that happened 2,000 years ago.

That’s like saying blacks “are” responsible for the slave trade, because some African tribes enslaved other tribes prior to the arrival of white colonizers. If they wanted to, Ward and Houston could scour the Bible for justifications of slavery (and plenty of other awful things), just as some Southerners did before the Civil War.

Now the question arises: Why bother to respond? These guys are poorly educated basketball players, not theologians. Why do we pay attention to anything they have to say?

The sad answer, of course, is that sports stars and other major figures have disproportionate influence. For instance, Ward is a spokesman for Florida’s “Born to Read” campaign. If he’s not criticized (and removed from that position), he could teach others to read in the same ignorant way. If the anti-Semitic portions of the New Testament are quoted approvingly instead of repudiated, they could do a lot of damage. And if broadcasters like Pete Vecsey and Ahmad Rashad continue to make light of these incidents on the air (as they did last week with Ward’s comments), casual bigotry gets a boost.

So it made sense to denounce the players and even boo them (as Knicks fans did to Ward night last week). It made sense for the Knicks to push for an apology (which Ward took his time in issuing). And it made sense for NBA Commissioner David Stern to issue a strong statement.

But what was especially commendable was something Stern refrained from doing. “Despite suggestions that the NBA should penalize Ward for his words, I am not planning to do so,” Stern said in a statement. “Ward would have been better off not to have uttered his uninformed and ill-founded statements, but I do not wish to enhance his martyrdom by penalizing him for giving them public voice. He will have to accept the reactions and judgments of fans and of fair-minded people who have been offended.”

To my mind, the reason not to fine Ward wasn’t just to avoid making him a martyr. The reason is that attaching a financial penalty to offensive speech is almost always wrong. It’s an infringement on speech (though it’s not censorship, which is when the government restrains speech). In any event, Stern may have come to understand these distinctions, because his treatment of Ward is a welcome departure for him.

In recent years, he fined Dennis Rodman for dissing Utah’s Mormon population during the Chicago Bulls-Utah Jazz playoff series. He fined former New Jersey Nets coach John Calipari for calling a reporter a “Mexican idiot.” He fined Allen Iverson for making derogatory remarks about gays to Indiana Pacers fans. And he fined a Miami Heat broadcaster for saying that slaves from Thomas Jefferson’s farm would have made good basketball players.

In these cases-and that of Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker, who insulted a wide variety of New Yorkers-the answer to offensive speech should be more speech. Denunciations from the commissioner, the franchise and other voices that count. Petitions. Booing. Even boycotts. But not financial penalty or suspension. And certainly not forcing them to undertake psychological counseling, as happened to Rocker. Unpopular, obnoxious, even grossly offensive speech is not a disease-or it shouldn’t be seen as such in this country. The Soviet Union used to institutionalize people who said the wrong things. We don’t want to go down that road.

I see two exceptions-two areas where firing is the proper response. The first is when the offensive comment is made by someone in management, like Al Campanis of the Los Angeles Dodgers, who-despite a long and racially tolerant career in baseball-was properly fired several years ago for making racist remarks on “Nightline.” Stupidity is a firing offense for coaches and managers, but not for players, who are paid to be athletes, not thinkers.

The other exception is if the offensive comments include advocacy of violence. Rappers and rap promoters who threaten people physically (or in their music) should be boycotted, denounced and-if their record labels had the guts (which they don’t)-fired. These folks have the right to say anything they want on a street corner or a soapbox, but no one has the right to a record contract. Hate is still hate even if, with a beat and some rhymes, it is posing as “art.”

Many free speech cases are complex, but the answer to them often isn’t: If the words are advocating hateful action, then action in response may be required. But most of the time, those who are offended should use the power of words to fight other words. This serves truth and upholds our rights at the same time.