In response to yesterday's 'As We See It' article that appealed to our ethos in opening its argument with a Church standpoint of the issue of free speech, but proceeded to denounce those who exercise their freedom in acting contrary to what is printed in your publications, I say: the grass is always browner on the other side.
When we confront free speech we usually have the tendency to wrongfully confuse lack of consideration for our view with unlawfulness. The article read well until the phrase, 'Readers haven't the right to stalk or harass sources quoted in any publication' moves the reader to think contrary to your point: that speech is free. Stalking and harassing of course are not recommended or smiled upon (although we have all utilized 'stalkernet' at one desperate point in time or another). Yet, the difference between the right to speak and the ability to speak tactfully can sometimes be measured with a mile-long ruler. Is this a flaw in the ideal of free speech? No, the flaw is human.
Therefore, I have conjured up a useful tool to accompany any potential infringement upon the freedom of speech we have been blessed with. It's called the tactometer. The tactometer measures tact, in addition to whether or not the statement or action violates free speech. This way, we can separate the two and ensure that we leave our biases behind. Lack of consideration may be harmful and offensive, but that seems to be the way some like to express themselves- and we give them that right to preserve ours. I believe this is what you were trying to express in your article.
Dan Dunn
Riverside, CA