Reporter's Notebook: Is there such a thing as too much free speech?

As a reporter, I like to consider myself rather liberal when it comes to the matter of free speech.

After reading a recent letter to the editor published on The Recorder's Opinion page, I wondered where the line is drawn, separating individual opinions from disparaging nonsense.

Preferring not to address the author by name, interested parties can read the letter in question in The Recorder on the Thursday, July 28 edition.

The primary purpose of any good Opinion section should be to create a public forum presenting a variety of opinions on public issues, social problems and general matters of interest. They can also be used to reply to materials already published, provide information of use or interest and to propose solutions.

To properly represent a wide range of public view it is realistic to expect just about anything, from sensible points to silly rationalizations and even prejudice.

With this in mind, I still had to take up argument with the publication of this specific letter, especially this selected quote - "Go to just about any field full of farm workers and odds are you can by heroin or crack."

For those of you were fortunate enough to miss the letter, I should assure you the remark was not taken out of context, because in this instance there was no context. The sentence is the end of the graph and is preceded by a reference to convenience store owners who falsify their accounting records.

When reviewing letters for publication there should be a way to filter out factual inaccuracies, unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory statements.

I originally chose to address the aforementioned letter, with no intended bias toward the author, only because it is a perfect example of why a little discretion can go a long way.

I will use a simple three-step interpretation of an argument once made by Porterville's most well-known atheists, Patrick Greene, as an example of a dissenting opinion based in rational thought.

1. Opinion - The City Council should not permit prayer to be at council meetings.

2. Fact - In the case of Rubin vs. City of Burbank, a judge ruled sectarian prayer at government meetings was unconstitutional.

3. Connection linking fact to opinion - Porterville's invocations closely mirrored those which prompted the Rubin case. In Burbank, formal invocations that took place on public property were a long-standing practice and were part of the official agenda for the meetings.

A simplified review of the rebuttal to Greene's argument seems equally reasonable.

1. Opinion - Prayer during City Council meetings should continue.

2. Fact - A resolution passed by City Council acknowledges the rights of individual speech and welcomes invocations from members of all faiths.

3. Connection linking fact to opinion - Because prayer to any deity is permitted, no one is excluded and to deny Christian prayer would infringe on their constitutional rights.

Oh, the beauty of valid reasoning. Without it, how would anyone understand a view they disagree with?

I should mention, Greene later retracted a lawsuit over the same issue, citing contradictions in California law that could make the illegality of prayer difficult to prove.

I must admit the inability to support an unpopular opinion is not the only reason I oppose the letter regarding migrant workers (among the grab bag of other topics) that I first made reference to.

With so little attention paid to that particular topic, I can only infer the author meant field workers are a major resource for crack cocaine and heroin in the Central Valley.

Additionally, the author appears to blame "immigrants" for drug paraphernalia sold in smoke shops, the act of tipping horses, dog fights, Social Security abuse and occasions when convenience stores sell alcohol between the hours of 2 and 6 a.m., when it is unlawful do to so.

I hope many will agree when I say derogatory generalizations directed toward a group, whose only connection is their country of origin or ethnicity, is clearly racist - and is without benefit to mankind.

A judgment or sentiment, positive or negative, should be shared with good intent and for public benefit. If I am wrong on this one then I will gladly strap on a scarlet "W" and wear it with pride.

That's just my opinion.

Contact Sarah Villicana at 784-5000, Ext. 1045, or svillicana@portervillerecorder.com.