Larry H. Miller told a reporter he did not want to be the "community censor."

But his decision to pull "Brokeback Mountain" -- a story of the love affair of two gay men -- from his MegaPlex Theaters in the Jordan Commons has thrust him into the international spotlight with accusations that he is doing just that.

Miller, whose corporate empire includes the Utah Jazz, the Delta Center, Jordan Commons and a string of movie theaters, was originally going to show "Brokeback." It's a story about two Wyoming sheep-herders/cowboys (the difference is a controversy of its own) who develop a homosexual relationship, and about how that relationship affects their families. Both marry women and have children.

Miller told a reporter for KCPW radio that the initial decision to show the film was simple business, and he would let the marketplace speak for itself. But then the reporter asked Miller if he was familiar with the movie's plot line. Miller said he was not, and after being told, he ordered the screenings canceled.

The move thrust Miller and Utah in a maelstrom. Gay and lesbian groups have threatened to boycott Miller's businesses; "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno has put the controversy in his monologue; and Heath Ledger, one of the film's stars, has called the decision "immature." Focus Features, the film's distributor, accused Miller of reneging on a contract agreement to show the film.

On the other hand, the ultraconservative Utah Eagle Forum hailed Miller for refusing to show the movie. Members of the group object to the film because they say it shows homosexuals in a sympathetic light.

Let us clear up one issue first: Miller's decision in no way violates free speech. The First Amendment outlaws government censorship. It says that Congress and any other branch of government cannot interfere with free expression. If this were the Sandy city government ordering the film shut down, there would be a legitimate First Amendment issue.

But a private individual -- a theater owner, in this case -- can do as he wishes. Miller can show or not show on his own theater screens. If he wants to run his own home movies, it is his constitutional right.

If he doesn't want to show "Brokeback Mountain," he doesn't have to.

Miller's theater is not the only place the movie can be seen in Utah. Theaters in Salt Lake City and Park City are showing it, and it has been advertised at Cinemark theaters in Utah County. Chances are, the controversy will spur ticket sales as people want to see what all the fuss is about.

Miller was clearly within his rights, but he may take some heat for hypocrisy. While one may believe that a love story between two homosexual men won't sit well with Utah's largely conservative, churchgoing population, one has to wonder why Miller is willing to show films such as "Grandma's Boy," which has abundant sexual references and 42 instances where the f-word is used; or "Hostel," a Quentin Tarentino produced film that contains graphic depiction of torture and mutilation, as well as more than 100 uses of the mother of all cuss words.

We wonder why depictions of people getting body parts cut off, being murdered, taking drugs, engaging in premarital sex or having sexual affairs during marriage seem more acceptable for the screen than a story of two sheep-herders in love.

One might argue that the movie industry in general has been in a prolonged downward spiral and that it now churns out large volumes of material that dulls people's sensibilities. It's odd, given the box-office dominance of family-oriented films, to see controversial themes as frequently as we do.

But that's the world we live in. And we should be thankful: Art should follow its own path, not the money trail. The writers and producers of "Brokeback Mountain" felt they had something of value to say. If Utahns don't like the message, so be it. Let them vote with their wallets.

Miller is certainly not alone in Utah. He has become the focal point, if not the symbol, of the whole state in the eyes of many around the world. And the controversy raises some valid questions. For example, many in Utah appear to accept cinematic portrayals of violence and sexual activity -- even brief homosexual themes within mainstream films. But many of the same people will draw the line when a whole script deals with homosexuality.

Why is "Brokeback Mountain" singled out for special disapproval when a great many other films have content that ought to jolt anybody with a sense of decency? We don't have the answer, except that movies are perhaps seen as a safe, vicarious outlet, and most people don't take them seriously or equate them to real life. Americans' fascination with horror movies is a case in point.

Certainly, Miller appears willing to accept the consequences of his taking a stand. Perhaps he'll have to pay penalties. Backing up one's values with action is the most that can be asked of anyone. While there may be some short-term repercussions for Miller with film distributors who may be nervous about future contracts, in the end we expect this will all blow over. Business as usual will resume. "Brokeback Mountain" won't break Miller's back, or his theaters or other enterprises.

Did Miller take a meaningful stand in rejecting the film, or should he have allowed it to be presented, leaving it to the marketplace to decide its moral and artistic merits? You tell us.