Elizabeth Hovde's Oct. 28 column, "The misunderstood Joey Gibson," created a backlash in our community when it presented a positive message about Patriot Prayer from a rally at the WSU Vancouver campus. The Oregonian's response is that this view should be aired because the newspaper supports "balance" and "free speech." In a follow-up editorial, Laura Gunderson said that publishing unpopular ideas is a means of debating them.

Limits to free speech do exist. The paper doesn't publish pornography, even though adult porn is legal. Incitement to violence and defamation have been judged as prohibited speech in the courts. I suspect it wouldn't print an op-ed critical of same-sex marriage or one that used a racial slur in a hateful way. A newspaper isn't compelled to publish legal speech. Doing so is an editorial choice. In America we all have a right to say hateful things, but none of us has a right to a megaphone. A newspaper is such an amplifier of speech and there are reasons to use that megaphone responsibly.

As civilization advances, norms develop that have improved all our lives. There is no debate that hatred and bigotry have no place in a civilized world. If we need to have a debate, we should talk about the strategy of groups and politicians who support hate and bigotry to push the limits of their dying ideologies by claiming they have a right to media access to discuss "both sides" and that it's balanced to print opinions that popularize their leaders without actually saying what they stand for.

In America, they can stand on a street corner and speak, buy ads or their own newspapers, organize, demonstrate and even run for office. They don't have a right to positive media coverage. Those who grant it don't understand how they are being manipulated.

Chris Carvalho, Aloha