I only remember agreeing with your past editorials. But not this time (News Times, Oct. 5). In my opinion, the Port of Coupeville has not squashed the Peace and Reconciliation group’s right to free speech. All they did was deny them free advertising. And there is no right to free advertising. Maybe I am wrong, but I think you are confusing the two.

Further, when anti-war, pro-Muslim groups want free advertising, it saddens me that they can depend on media reporting and editorials to give it to them, under the guise of protecting free speech. I think you should not do that. If there had been an anti-Muslim pro-war group wanting free advertising, and they were turned down by the port of Coupeville, what would you do then? Would you write an editorial supporting their right to free speech and free advertising? What if it were a flag burning group (which is OK with the Supreme Court)? Should they be given free ad space in Coupeville’s kiosk? And if they were turned down, would they get a supportive free speech/free advertising editorial from you too? 

I think free speech needs to be defended. But not in the guise of free advertising for anti-American pro-Muslim groups.

Lastly, for any group or well known Muslim with a message of peace and reconciliation, I think their target audience ought to be the head chopping Muslim terrorists of the Middle East, several thousand miles away from Coupeville.

James S. Moore

Coupeville