BNP in the Ham and High

I'm interested in the reaction of some Ham and High staff to the publication of a BNP ad in their paper. Their point that they do not want the BNP's cash to be paying their wages is completely legitimate and I understand why they do not want to give credibility to the organisation by advertising it. However, in a democracy that is supposedly for free speech it is interesting that we will only let speak the people who agree with us.
Geoff Martin, the editor of the H&H seems to agree and wrote on page 4, "To be able to tolerate those we vehemently disagree with is the hallmark of an open, egalitarian and democratic society, where freedom of speech and expression are sacrosanct."
So why do journalists, who prize the freedom of speech above anything else, want to suppress it? The staff of a local paper I worked at over Christmas once refused to send their pages to the printer until an advert for the BNP had been removed.
I understand their objections to the organisation, objections that I too share, but these objections seem to be more important to them than the sanctity of free speech. The idea that there are degrees of what it is ok to say is slightly alarming. I''m not sure Voltaire would approve.