Is 'Obsession' freedom of speech?

In the most basic sense of the First Amendment, the "Obsession" DVD inserted as an advertisement in many swing state newspapers last Sunday (including The Grand Rapids Press), is an example of Freedom of Speech. And that's the excuse many newspaper editors relied on to justify its being sandwiched between Meijer and Best Buy inserts. 

Paid advertisements aren't the best example of freedom of speech. How, for example, could someone with an opposing view of the DVD have a chance to express those ideas without having to shell out thousands of dollars? The best most newspapers offer is a Letters to the Editor section, and those letters are often limited to 250 words or less. Not quite the same as a 60-minute DVD.

Some papers had the chance to run the ad, but didn't. The editor of the Greensboro (NC) News & Record explained their decision this way:

"I asked our publisher about it. He said it was divisive and plays on people's fears and served no educational purpose. The revenue it would have brought in was not a motivator."

I've watched "Obesssion", because if there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who criticize something without having seen/read/heard it. In my opinion, it is a thinly-veiled attempt to paint the Muslim faith with an ugly broad brush. The writers try to qualify their presentation on Islamic extremists by briefly mentioning that not all Muslims feel the same way. But there is next to no attempt to elaborate on what Islam is about (or any mention that there is a history of Christian extremists). As a film, it is poorly produced. As an argument, it is extremely one-sided and filled with appeals to emotion. That's not an argument. That's propaganda. And I can't fathom why a reputable newspaper - whether the GR Press or NY Times - would accept advertising revenue to run it.