Letters to the editor have always been a feature of American newspapers. They are an important tool in judging how well a newspaper is engaging its audience.

Whereas the editorial suggests the newspaper's position on various issues, and news stories or features present their material in a neutral fashion, the letter to the editor is one place where any reader can voice an opinion, as long as it is articulate, does not contain libelous or obscene language and meets the paper's length requirements (250 words).

Like all newspapers, the Citizen receives its share of letters, and there are a number of readers who write regularly.

Opinions vary

This issue of the Citizen contains a letter critiquing one published last issue by a regular contributor to the column. That letter criticized the current Presidential administration.

The fact a name appears in the letters column more than once in awhile might suggest a special relationship between the writer and the newspaper, but in fact the same mechanism is at work here as is in regard to public meetings; the same people always show up because they are the ones engaged in their community or in the issues at stake.

Participating in public forums

Same thing here. The fact someone chooses to be engaged enough to write us merits condemnation of neither writer nor publication.

Editorial cartoons

The Citizen has received a couple of complaints about a recent editorial cartoon critiquing the choice of Sarah Palin as VP nominee for John McCain.

As with the response to the letter to the editor, the gist of the complaints against the cartoon seem to be that it should not exist at all.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism

This reminds me of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, in which a series of editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in a Danish newspaper in 2005.

Muslim organizations, who objected to the depictions, responded by holding public protests which escalated to violence and more than 100 deaths.

Critique the idea, not the form

It is not necessary that the reader agree with the sentiments expressed in the editorial section, whether it's letters to the editor or cartoons, but to argue against the form itself is like arguing with a stop sign.

The cartoon is an expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The map is not the territory. To attack it rather than to debate the ideas expressed there is shallow thinking and a critique of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects speech and the freedom of the press.

Debate good, censorship bad

Open debate is a cornerstone of American freedoms, and the degree to which this debate is censored, either from outside or from within, is an indicator of where we actually lie on the scale running from democracy on one end to fascism on the other.

Use it or lose it

I stress this concept because I suspect a lot of people really don't understand the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights aren't like the laws of physics -- they aren't irrefutable, and if they aren't protected they wither away.

The last eight years in this country prove those rights can be whittled away, and always for "good" reasons, in this case the shadow of terrorism after 9/11. Goodbye First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution.

You don't have to agree with other people's ideas, but anyone who argues against their right to express those ideas in print is treading in dangerous waters.

You don't want to go there, and neither do I.

-- Don Lee