Freedom of expression should not be at the cost of somebody else's freedom of not-to-see the-expression. A bunch of indians are feeling uncomfortable watching the cheerleaders during IPL-matches. It is no good arguing "if cheerleaders offend, switch off TV" as it will shut off cricket too. I support the attempt to stop open broadcast of cheerleading.
So what about the freedom of those who wish to view the cheerleaders on TV? Surely, there can be many solutions although I can only think of one now. It might seem funny, but it is an effective solution. Let us call it solution X. The solution is to have a private cheerleading session going on parallely with the game. On one TV channel transmit game+cheerleading, on another channel transmit vanilla cricket. My intention in this post is not to advertise the solution X. I only want to emphasize that there are many ways to guard freedom-of-expression of all concerned, even in seemingly contentious scenarios.
I feel irritated when comparison is drawn with bar-girl-issue and cheerleader-issue. Banning of bar-girls was a blatant case of violation of freedom-to-enjoy and freedom-to-earn. Bar-dancing happened in an access restricted area where it could not be forced on unwilling viewers. Every person in a bar knew what he will see. The people claiming to feel offended are nuisance. In India we had many such nuisances. See my earlier posts for a couple of more examples.