The day my last column ran I got a call from an angry reader -- let's call him Gerald. Gerald said he worked in the restaurant business (he wouldn't divulge which restaurant,) and was offended that I had made such "ignorant" accusations against restaurants. He said I had irked him so much, in fact, that he took it upon himself to research my past employment with restaurants.

I asked Gerald if he knew the word "satire." He said he didn't think satire was so caustic. I said he didn't know what the word meant.

He declared he would write letters and take "legal action" against me because I had mentioned the names of two specific restaurants (which he couldn't believe my editors had actually permitted.) Gerald was alluding to "libel"; he obviously doesn't know what that word means either.

I'm not using his real name because A) he was too much of a milquetoast to tell me, and B) even if I did know his name I wouldn't print it here because I understand what libel means.

Libel is defined by some of the most fluid (and therefore complex) laws and rulings, but, according to "The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual," they basically reduce to these: A writer cannot publish material about public figures or public officials that is "malicious," in other words, material that is "knowingly false" or that "recklessly disregards the truth." With regard to private figures, the potentially libelled party must prove (in most states) that the writer acted with "negligence."

In this country libel laws exist so that people like me cannot publicly malign people like Gerald, but the First Amendment exists so people like Gerald cannot censor everything they don't want to read in columns written by people like me. It's the Geralds in this world who scare me, and looking back on our conversation I realize I should have said just two words to him: "MY OPINION." Look under my low-resolution picture, Gerald. Can you read? Of course you can, though you probably don't understand what you're seeing.

Yes, this is my opinion and it is sufficiently protected under the auspices of the First Amendment. In fact, I think I'll flex my liberties a little bit more.

Brunet pre-pubescent boys who eat too many marshmallows may never be able to spawn children.

There, I said it. Granted, statements such as these don't lend much credibility to me as a writer, but at least it's still my choice to make them.

Now I don't mean to belittle the opinions of those who disagree with me. I realize that my first column offended most of the people in the hotel, restaurant and institutional management major. And I can respect people like Noelle Boyd (you see, I named her) who wrote to the editor to contest my opinion. What I cannot respect is the people who would disregard the tenets of our country in their quest to make everyone believe what they believe.

People like Gerald are deluded as to the importance of their own opinions. Our country is reeling from the disparity between the right to express opinions and the desire to impose them on everyone else. We can all name at least four examples in the past year where the Geralds have taken their delusions all the way to the courts.

Dennis Barrie, the art director of the Cincinnati Contemporary Arts Center, almost went to prison because someone didn't like the Robert Mapplethorpe photographs he put on display. The music of 2 Live Crew has been censored, and this summer its members were almost found guilty for singing their opinions on stage.

Because of an injunction brought against The New York Times, all "newspapers may be sued . . . for racial discrimination in advertisements" (The New York Times, Jan. 25.) The courts are trying to force publications to be inordinately inclusive in their ads, with no regard for audience. In other words Playboy might some day have to include advertising for seven year old girls.

The U.S. Congress almost approved a constitutional amendment outlawing flag burning because some don't agree with it. In the words of the noble former U. S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, "Punishing desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered."

"We are aware that desecration of the flag is deeply offensive to many. . . If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Although Brennan speaks of flag burning, he could easily be addressing any of the other issues involving freedom of expression.

I don't agree with flag burning. I don't agree with cigarette smoking either, but I don't want to criminalize it. Why? Because it doesn't infringe on my rights. That's the whole point.

Maybe what we should do is outlaw people like Gerald who would undermine our country with their subversive, fascist hallucinations. OK, I'm being ridiculous. So is Gerald.

Remember, before you pick up the phone to berate me about my theory on marshmallows, look at the words under my picture.