Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published January 16, 2003
Re: Free speech takes a hit in our nation's newsrooms, by Mary Jo Melone, Jan. 12.
While I agree with Mary Jo Melone's overall insight into Bill Cotterell's week-long suspension from the Tallahassee Democrat for his insensitive e-mail reply to a reader, she downplayed one important element of the controversy.
I have lived in Tallahassee for 15 of the past 20 years, and I have read plenty of Cotterell's columns, enough to know that he spouts his opinions from a conservative soapbox. As Mary Jo pointed out in her column, I don't have to agree with his shtick in order to give him a wide berth to espouse it.
What bothers me about Cotterell, and others in the same category, is that he not only writes columns that promote his political viewpoint, but he also is one of the most prolific writers on the newspaper's staff when it comes to covering political news. As a reader who understands the difference, how can I trust that Cotterell's political leanings don't invade his allegedly objective coverage of a political event, perhaps the 2002 governor's race, for example?
In reference to the controversy over the e-mail that Cotterell sent to the reader, how can Muslims now trust that Cotterell will ever be objective any time he covers a story or event that includes them? Especially when he aggressively stated that he has no sympathy for the fact that their innocent friends and family may die at the hands of a hawkish Israeli policy toward Arabs and Palestinians.
In my opinion, Cotterell received a lenient penalty for an unprofessional act leveled at a reader who was just as justified in expressing his or her opinions about a political issue.
-- Jack Clifford, Tallahassee
Re: Free speech takes a hit in our nation's newsrooms, by Mary Jo Melone, Jan. 12.
Melone's rationale on free speech pertaining to Bill Cotterell's suspension surprised me. Her argument -- "I don't have to agree with what he said. But I am obligated to my bones to defend it" -- is inappropriate in this case.
The Tallahassee Democrat did not withdraw Cotterell's right to publish his views, but it did deny him the freedom to ridicule one of the world's major religions, Islam. One does not have the right to denigrate another's religion.
Civility demands one's respect for another's culture. To equate Sami Al-Arian's right to defend himself in a civil manner with the hateful comments of Cotterell lacks logic.
Melone supports Cotterell by stating that he "talked like a lot of Americans who are angry and suspicious about things Arabic." This logic says that if "a lot of Americans" subscribe to a certain point of view, then it is correct for a journalist to express the then it is correct for a journalist to express the same views. A most judgmental position to take when reporting.
Melone lamented that "time was, newspapers weren't afraid of offending people." When "time was," newspapers rarely ridiculed one's religion. They may have offended politicians, criminals or certain political parties but not the manner in which they prayed.
Finally, Melone compared an editor of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, who expressed in writing her bias regarding Katherine Harris, with Cotterell, who mocked a major religion in our country and showed his disdain for the lives of "a few" Arabs.
No, Mary Jo, today's journalists are not, as you wrote, "super-sensitive" and "afraid." I read your columns and those of Bill Maxwell and others. Cotterell and his clones have merely exhibited their tactless bravado.
-- Arthur Hebert, Largo
Re: Free speech takes a hit in our nation's newsrooms.
Congratulations and thanks to Times columnist Mary Jo Melone for having the courage to denounce the suspension of a Tallahassee Democrat columnist for speaking "his mind" in an e-mail to a reader. The issue is truly one of free speech. Melone is correct that in this case "free speech takes a hit in our nation's newsrooms." Most disappointing is the cowardice displayed by other journalists by their failure to come to his defense.
Melone is also correct in alluding to the advocacy journalism displayed by the Tallahassee Democrat and others in their defense of suspended University of South Florida professor Sami Al-Arian. It should be noted that Al-Arian's so-called free speech actually called for "Death to the Great Satan" and "Death to Israel." His speech was inflammatory and called for "jihad." Columnist Cotterell's offense was merely using some very politically incorrect comments regarding Muslims. We may, indeed, be going too far in allowing the Muslim community so much slack.
Indeed we may be placing a chill on some honest concerns regarding the activities of some of their members such as Al-Arian. Contrast this with the leeway given Arab and other anti-Semites regarding Israel and Jews. Jews are called "monkeys and pigs" and "a lesion on the forehead of history" by a member of the Lebanese Parliament. The "Great Satan" (United States) is called a tool of the "Little Satan" (Israel), and this brings no response.
Locally our area received leaflets from the neo-Nazi National Alliance accusing Jews of bringing Africans to our shores to "rape and spread AIDS." "Blame the Jews" does not seem to alarm the media to the same extent as harsh criticism of Muslims.
Every right does have a limit. Inflammatory speech that endangers a group is not free speech.
-- Norman N. Gross, president, PRIMER, chairperson, Anti-Hate Committee Greater Florida B'nai B'rith, Palm Harbor
I'm getting tired of an opinion against Sami Al-Arian's professorship being interpreted as an assault on the First Amendment. They are two entirely different things. I do not believe that many of the liberal whiners would scream so loud if David Duke, Jerry Falwell or Wayne LaPierre were asked to give up a college teaching job because his opinions were too strong and one-dimensional. All they're doing is showing their anti-American hypocrisy.
Get Al-Arian off the public payroll and let him go on the speaker circuit with his opinions.
-- Gerald Doty, Pinellas Park
Re: Pay up or leave, Jan. 5.
I was appalled by your story about the Nature's Watch development inasmuch as I have numerous acquaintances in that community. What has happened to them is outrageous. It appears that a combination of unscrupulous developers, shady contractors, sleazy lawyers, misguided court decisions and a negligent county building inspection process has placed innocent homeowners in this predicament. I have been told that the court-appointed receiver has developed an adversarial relationship with many of the homeowners in Nature's Watch, further exacerbating the situation.
Politicians have expressed concern but have done nothing! As I understand it, 50 or more families are in danger of losing their homes; why isn't something being done about it? These are hardworking, taxpaying citizens and they deserve some public and private support.
-- Attilio Corbo, Palm Harbor
Re: Pay up or leave.
As a resident of the Nature's Watch development, I wish to extend my thanks, along with those of my fellow homeowners, for the excellent article on the problems we are facing. I have two points that I feel warrant further investigation.
First, in response to questions regarding his department's responsibility in the matter, Pinellas Building inspector Robert Nagin states: "We're not quality control. We're quality assurance."
I fail to see the distinction, as you cannot have one without the other. Quality assurance starts with good quality control. In this case, quality control would be the responsibility of the Building Department and its inspectors. If building inspectors don't inspect buildings, what do they do to assure quality control and assurance?
Second, the builder/developer, Richard Geiger, blames all of the problems on pressure washing of the buildings. Did pressure washing cause the hurricane straps to disappear? Did pressure washing cause the fireproofing in chimneys to disappear? Did pressure washing cause the roofs and the windows to be installed improperly?
To add insult to injury, Geiger continues to "build" homes in the Tampa Bay area, and the county and continues to ignore the fact that it bears the ultimate responsibility in this matter. Even Judge Fred Bryson opined, "Some building inspector turned his head." Where's the justice?
-- Charles Badgley, Palm Harbor
Re: Pay up or leave, Jan. 5.
As a resident of Nature's Watch I want to thank your reporter, Robert Farley, for his in-depth story on our situation. I also appreciate your newspaper's editorial stand in your Jan. 10 edition (A homeowner nightmare).
Many homeowners in this community are facing foreclosure. Their homes are decaying and infested with toxic mold, and property values have rapidly declined.
Those responsible are all in a state of denial. Everyone involved, whether it be the county, the developer, the subcontractors, the building inspectors, the architect, etc., all blame someone else. Harry Truman had a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here." Well, one could make the argument that the buck stops at the county Building Department. This question was recently decided by Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal when it ruled that government could be held liable for negligent conduct of a building inspector (The Manors of Inverrary Vs. City of Lauderhill).
It's time for those in power to do the right thing and provide some tangible help to our community.
-- Walter Seelig, Palm Harbor
The builder has it all. He can afford to be arrogant, fearless, incompetent and condescending. He can delay the house-building process, cause the homeowner to pay construction loan penalties. He doesn't have to be concerned about where he'll live, his lease or a closing date on the sale of his current house. He doesn't have to respond to your complaints; the contract protects him.
A simple LLC or Inc (incorporation) after the company name protects the contractor from legal liability. "Bonded and Insured" on a business card doesn't provide the consumer protection -- it actually protects the builder. Most of us can't afford to go through a legal process in which the builder is financially protected under incorporation.
Building inspectors, as mentioned in the St. Petersburg Times article about the Nature's Watch disaster, are not responsible for quality control. The State Department of Professional Regulation does answer complaints against builders and has a Recovery Fund (capped at $25,000). Unfortunately the complaint process is more than six months and restitution takes years.
Maybe it's time for the Legislature to consider a new law, one that enforces greater financial accountability against a builder. Perhaps then the builder would be a little less fearless.
-- Paula Kowal, Hudson
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by fax to (727) 893-8675 or by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com (no attachments, please).
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.