Re: “Kimmel suspension puts free speech on dangerous footing” (Sept. 21, Opinion):
Melissa Davis’ column was a fair-minded dialogue of freedom-of-speech points. A associated difficulty is the frequent sacrifice of fact on the altar of First Modification rules. In our present political setting, the reality or untruth of a disliked remark is commonly ignored as individuals within the dialogue run for his or her respective blue or purple corners. Little doubt some readers will even dislike what Davis has written, however that doesn’t imply she espouses something false.
Fact relies on info and info are usually not topic to opinion. To paraphrase U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s remark a few years in the past, everyone seems to be entitled to their very own opinion, however not their very own info. The Trump administration’s fundamental objection to unfavorable media and different reporting is that it simply doesn’t like what’s being written or mentioned, not that the info are misstated or the reporting in any other case unfaithful.
Each president has confronted essential reporting, however threats of litigation or Federal Communications Fee license revocation just because that reporting is disliked have, till now, been exceedingly uncommon. And this doesn’t bode nicely for our democracy.
Mick Tronquet, Seattle
