Free speech, hard decisions and one letter

MOSES LAKE — “Freedom isn’t free.”

Freedom can be defined by our rights. We have the right to choose our elected leaders. We have the right to bear arms. We have the right to choose our religion. We have the right to free speech.

The inherent problem with freedom is someone will do something extremely unpopular and they are allowed because they have the right to do it.

We vote for the wrong politician. A gun is used for a crime. A church is established worshiping the wrong god. Someone writes a vile opinion in a letter to the editor.

It is part of the price we pay to have our rights.

Newspapers are married to free speech through the First Amendment of our Constitution.

“Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press ...”

Spending more than 20 years in journalism, I have fought to ensure people will continue to enjoy the freedom of speech.

I have not always enjoyed the crusade.

My job as an editor is to give everyone a platform to be heard, to voice their opinions, by printing letters. The tradition of letters to the editor dates back beyond the formation of our country. Benjamin Franklin wrote letters to newspaper editors before our revolution.

This platform is an exercise of our right to free speech.

There are times when I don’t want to give people a place to voice their opinions. It is hard to facilitate free speech when I receive letters filled with racial or religious hatred. Or when I receive letters where a person’s opinion is presenting fiction as facts. And when I receive letters with repugnant opinions.

But the letters to the editor section is not about my beliefs, views or preferences. It is about allowing free speech. My role is to remain neutral when reviewing letters. My opinion cannot enter into it. It would be unethical and unfair. This leaves me printing letters that I would prefer ended in a garbage can.

Last week, I approved a letter from C. Larry Wright. We confirmed his identity and his letter met the criteria set in our policy. He has a right to his opinion, a right to free speech.

One sentence in his letter upset many people.

“I cannot vote for a man who is more likely to be dead than alive by the end of his term.”

It’s insensitive. It’s cruel. It’s his opinion and he has a right to say it.

I do not agree with Mr. Wright. Nor does anyone on the Columbia Basin Herald editorial board.

Some people have told us that we should not have printed his letter. Some have threatened us with subscription cancellations or boycotts because we upheld Mr. Wright’s freedom of speech. But they don’t understand that the freedom and right that allows them to speak and write threats toward the newspaper is the same used by Mr. Wright to present his unpopular opinion.

To say it would have been easier not to print the letter is wrong. It would be a decision I would have to live with, one that would violate my ethics and belief in the freedom of speech.

The angry readers are the price I pay to uphold one man’s right.

The emotions and anger they feel about Mr. Wright’s opinion is the price of freedom — freedom of speech.