The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which regulate an establishment of religion, or that would prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. (Wikipedia summary).
Pretty clear cut, right? No, not so much. There are three categories of plaintiffs in a defamation case. Again, in a general synopsis from Wikipedia: In a defamation case, a court will categorize a plaintiff as either a general public figure, a limited public figure, or a private citizen. To prove defamation, an ordinary person must prove that the defendant made the false statement, at least, negligently.
F. Robert Allison, Attorney at Law in Massachusetts further clarifies, “In this era of fake news, criminal accusations, and allegations of misconduct made toward politicians, some people may wonder why they don’t sue to set the record straight. The main reason may be that, because the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and of the press, any action based on the content of statements must satisfy narrowly defined requirements, and politicians, as public figures, must also meet significantly higher burdens of proof than an ordinary person.”
I share all of this because in this issue there is a Letter to the Editor taking issue with a paid political advertisement in the February 3 edition of the paper.
Our Letter to the Editor policy includes the following: Letters must contain appropriate language and focus on issues rather than individuals, must be signed and no longer than 350 words in length. The View editorial staff reserves the right not to publish any letter deemed offensive or malicious.
We appreciate the letter, as we appreciate every letter. We appreciate people who have enough courage and belief in their convictions to sign a letter. I got one unsigned anonymous note saying they would never buy the paper again because of the ad.
So, what do we do? The ad referred to the current government as corrupt, anti-American and even criminal. The “Letter to the Editor” called someone perpetuators of lies, inferred foreign interference in the election, etc.
So, again, what do we do? The majority of letters we get are conservative due to the make-up of this community. We have always chosen to print letters to the editor regardless of which side of the political fence they come from.
Advertisers are asked to follow the same guidelines as the people who write a letter to the editor. Subscriptions cover most of the postage for each subscription.
Advertisers cover everything else.
Should we ban political comments of any kind? We’re not going to do that. Things that the government does, beginning with CCMD, Rye Town, Rye Fire Protection District, all the way up to the President of the United States have an effect on every single one of us.
Where does it stop? We’ve had people complain that there is too much “God” in the paper. Some have complained there is too much sports, too little sports, too much history, not enough history. Some complain there is too much crime covered, too little crime reported. I think you get the drift.
So, if you want a paper that only lets you know who Aunt Henrietta had for supper on Tuesday night and nothing else, we might not be right for you.
BUT we promise to be a little more critical, a little more careful, a little less tolerant and, as we have for over a dozen years, we will continue to listen to our readers. Thanks for the letter.