i am sad to say that the magazine has emailed me back about my letter and their response is absolutely ridiculous:
Thank you for your thoughful letter. I am, however, puzzled by your final remarks, which seem to betray a lack of
intelligence that was present throughout the rest of your letter. If you would not like to read eye Weekly in the
future, that is your choice. All of us have different preferences in reading material.
However, the comment "free speech is fine, but this article crossed a line" reads to any intelligent reader as "free
speech is fine, as long as I agree with the speaker."
In what way did Mr. Archer (who has been subject by lovers of animal life to several dozen death threats since
expressing his honest and reasoned -- if perhaps flawed -- opinon) cross a line? By offending you? By forcing
you to actually think about what you believe and come up with coherent reasons for why you believe it?
By the end of this week, as you will know if you look at the paper, we will have devoted more than twice (and by
the following week, more than three times) as much space to the opinions of animal lovers who disagree with Mr.
Archer than we did to his original opinion. It strikes me that the only reason to remain outraged at his expression
of his opinion, in the face of the publishing of yours and other dissenting opionions, is if you somehow feel that
your own argument is so irredeemably weak as to ultimately not bear consideration. In which case, I would say
that you have crossed a line (it's called fascism). And for that I feel sad.
I never, usually, respond to letters to the editor. And I disagree with Mr. Archer (who owns four pets) about the
feelings and worth of animals. Yet I feel compelled to respond to some of you who have responded to him
because of the incohate, misdirected rage that Mr. Archer has been subject to.
And for the record, nowhere in the article does Mr. Archer suggest that poisoning pets is a good thing. In fact
he calls it stupid and says that it should be a crime. He merely offered that in a world where millions of humans
starve and we are actively killing thousands of others through warfare, we may want to consider where our moral
priorities should lie.
If you disagree, that's entirely fine. But to say he has crossed some line of acceptable speech is just absurd. And
what does everyone think of this???