Last week, I went the rounds through e-mail with a reader about two letters to the editor I published that were found to be offensive – at least to the disgruntled reader. I was criticized for not discerning their inappropriateness since both basically called for the annihilation of all Muslims.
I was told that such advocacy of religious genocide was obviously not a form of free speech with the accompanying example that a person can’t yell, “Fire,” in a crowded theater. I was told I should’ve turned these Washington County residents into the authorities for promoting such a “kill all” notion.
While I can certainly understand the reader’s alarm and disgust, my first duty as the editorial page editor is to protect an individual’s First Amendment rights. It doesn’t matter if I personally or professionally disagree or agree with the submissions, as long as there is no defamation of character, slander or blatant dissemination of false and damaging information, and the letter adheres to the newspaper guidelines (200 words or less), there is simply no reason for me to censor a person’s opinion.
The truth is a person can yell, “Fire,” in a crowded theater but there are consequences. It is also a complete lie with malicious intent to cause harm. Articulating distain for all Muslims, or for that matter in other letters this newspaper has received, Utah drivers, politicians, illegal aliens, polygamists, Mormons, Christians, etc., is an opinion.
While those opinions may be vile, full of hate, and to go as far as the promotion of human extermination, they are generalized rants with no real purpose other than to complain. Is that illegal? Is it worthy of censure? Not to me, so I print them. The reason I print them is because of court case that set precedent on the protection of freedom of speech through the press.
Let’s go back about 40 years or so, in the 1960s, when the New York Times Co. vs. Sullivan took place. This case arose at the time of the civil rights movement after the Times was sued for publishing an editorial advertisement for the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King.
There were factual errors in the full page ad that detailed incidences of police brutality against black students in the South. Even though he was not mentioned by name in the article, L.B. Sullivan, the city commissioner in charge of the police department, sued The New York Times and four black clergymen who were listed as the officers of the committee.
Of course, Sullivan demanded a retraction, which was denied. After a long court battle and appeal to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land reasoned that "erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate." It also established a rule for defamation cases for public officials, which dominates modern-day American libel law.
It is also what I consider when printing letters to the editor on the opinion page.
Generalizations in writing – positive or negative – about a race, sex, religion or nationality is protected speech afforded by the First Amendment when those overviews do nothing more than praise and exalt or whine and fault find. Those who disagree please chime in and tell me why because the dialogue may provide me with some insight and introspection I have not explored as the editorial page editor. Any feedback is appreciated.
I'm always open to discussion, but what I want to point out is that whether readers want to acknowledge it or not, the letters are a reflection of the community. That community is growing more diverse every day and writing about issues and ideas that far exceed the past dominate cultural values and beliefs of Southern Utah.
To stifle that would be an injustice to the pulse of the community heartbeat. I don’t want to be the person that causes the heart attack of a pounding movement where The Spectrum & Daily News has received more commentary in the letters to the editor, the Vent, the Writer’s Group and guest editorials than ever before in its history.
I pray every day for discernment (and more pages of commentary to put into print.) I don’t take my job lightly in editing or publishing people’s thoughts they’ve taken the time and effort to put into writing. It is an honor that I do not take for granted and will always, to the best my ability, execute with as much fairness as possible - and the First Amendment in mind as top priority.
RSS feed
