The Richmond Times-Dispatch and Censorship

In the Friday, August 17, 2007 [page A10] issue of the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the editorial page lamented about how "Elections pose dilemmas." By that they were talking about the "dilemma" of running op-ed and opinion pieces from candidates running for office because they "inevitably will serve the writer's electoral interests" and "columns become de facto ads." However, they found it in their hearts to open their columns to the local candidates this time around to "offer a twist." They invited candidates in contested races for the State Senate and House of Delegates to send them, "concise statements about the abusers' fees. A word count of 450 seems about right." The deadline was one week away, August 24. Surprisingly, no one I knew told me about the invitation to candidates to respond. It was kind of a fluke for me to read the op-ed page that day. I subscribe to the paper (except Sundays) but I mostly just read the Metro section and any front page local "stuff."

I submitted my response on the morning of August 24, a crisp 446 words. The following Sunday, I expected but did not see the candidates' responses to the abusers' fees. The following morning I emailed editor, Mr. Faulk to ask when the responses would be printed and told him that I'd expected to see them in Sunday's paper. He responded, "We are pretty much done accepting copy for a Sunday Commentary section by Tuesday of the week of publication. It virtually would be impossible to set a submission deadline of Friday at 5 p.m. and to print the piece in that Sunday's section. (By Friday at 5 p.m., the Commentary section is within hours of being printed. So by that point it must be vetted, laid out, art chosen, and edited, edited, and edited again.) Our plan is to run them this Sunday."

And run them they did, in the September 2 issue [E5]. And edit, edit, edit, they did. The Times-Dispatch is horrible about maintaining links, so here it is while it lasts.

For the sake of simplicity, here is the text attributed to my name in their paper:

"I fully support repealing the abuser fees for traffic violators. The goal of the legislation is not really to reduce reckless driving, but to generate revenues to fund the transportation budget. The increase in fines also creates a real economic hardship for many citizens, and excludes non-Virginians. Enforcement of these fees will be impossible and sporadic at best.

A couple of editorials in this newspaper have cited a lack of courage on the part of the General Assembly to raise the state's gasoline tax. If elected, I will have the courage to support raising the tax on gasoline. How much of an increase I am uncertain; study is required to determine what is an appropriate increase for our needs. It makes sense to tax the users of the transportation system. Those who drive more or drive wasteful vehicles would pay more. Additionally, I propose a $3-per-package tax on cigarettes that would be dedicated to funding transportation -- the current tax is 30 cents.

Of course, the real solution to Virginia's transportation difficulties is to develop a statewide high-speed rail system and light-rail systems in our cities. We need to get out of our cars. Car culture is a unique benefit enjoyed by the majority of Americans. It is by no means a natural right, socially responsible, or sustainable in the long term. From a global perspective, what would a good, sustainable transportation system look like? Fast, efficient, convenient, and free I hope. America should take the lead and be an example."

That all sounds well and good; and accurately represents my view but here is what they CENSORED:

"What entitles America which constitutes less than 5% of the world population to consume 25% of the world’s resources? Is it our military supremacy? It is also helpful to keep in mind that half of the world’s six billion people live on less than $2 per day."

And my concluding paragraph:

"In order to fund rail improvements, I propose the Commonwealth regulate marijuana like tobacco. The release of non-violent drug offenders from jails and prisons will save the Commonwealth millions of dollars. Marijuana is a popular drug, no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco. I propose charging a $6 tax per box of 20 cigarettes. $5 from every box to go toward funding a state-wide high speed rail system and light rail systems in our cities. $1 from every box to fund free state-wide addiction treatment programs for all drugs including tobacco, alcohol, and gambling.

To learn more about my campaign, please visit: www.VoteSilver.com"

Now, my question is why did they edit that? Was it because I went beyond the discussion of the "Abuser Drive Fees" or I got off-topic? I would argue that neither is a just complaint. The topic is transportation and how to fund it. What was accomplished by their censorship of my response? They effectively limited my "Free Speech," that most essential of political rights. We no longer have a Free Press in this country, we mostly have a corporate press that dictates what we hear and see. What of the disservice done to citizen-readers, the spirit of Democracy, and open debate? To hide my positions from the citizens when in possession of such views is a disgrace. It stinks of Tyranny cutting out the tongue of Free Political Speech. It's an insult to the trade of journalism.

I am for Freedom, Justice, Liberty, Free Speech, and Socialism. I agree with Jefferson, "... truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." As the old saying goes, "Truth has nothing to fear but concealment."

Read the complete and unabridged version here.