To the Editor:

This letter pertains to The Newtown Bee’s editorial in the September 15th issue stating it may refuse to publish a letter if it contains a “general or specific negative attack” on a candidate.

In my opinion that is the wrong criteria on which to base refusal to publish a letter, as well as being way too broad and way too subject to interpretation. There is no recognition of whether the statements deemed a negative attack are true or false.

This is especially important because “The Letter Hive” functions as the “public square,” a forum which hosts protected speech.

A major issue in this year’s election, if not the most important issue, is the competence of the candidates to run the town as First Selectman. Is The Bee going to allow letters to point out that Jeff Capeci has had 18 years of experience holding some of the most important positions on the town government side, while refusing letters stating that his opponent has no experience in such positions?

That statement is a “specific negative attack” against the Democratic candidate, but it is true, and it is very important. There is no forum other than The Bee in which that statement can be made publicly for all to see and read.

So, I call on The Bee to rethink its position that “general or specific negative attacks” will not be printed. Given the importance of the issue of experience in the election for First Selectman, enforcing such a ban could be seen as tipping the scales by protecting a candidate from justified criticism.

To keep the discourse civil, I hope The Bee will amend its policy for rejection of “unsubstantiated personal attacks,” a very clear criteria easy to apply.

When one runs for office, truthful negative criticism comes with the territory.

Sincerely,

Robert Hall

Newtown