Two weeks ago, I wrote a column/blog seeking your thoughts on whether we should have published a letter to the editor that ridiculed state Rep. Betty Hall of Brookline for advocating that Congress initiate impeachment proceedings against the president and vice president.

* * *

"No letter should be published in The Telegraph if it is insulting, pejorative and/or debasing any person or persons in its content. Such letters should have no place in ‘letters to the editor,’ which should be informative, objective, and inquiring."

– Abigail Beutler

"I think you were right to publish the letter. I basically agree with the letter. At the time, I found the language somewhat amusing. But I agree it would have been better if the writer had worded it more politely. If people are offended by the choice of words, then I challenge them to write their own letter, but be careful to be as polite in their language as they require of others."

– Kelly Caudill

"I agree with your decision to publish the letter unedited – it preserves the sanctity of freedom of speech while exposing the writer’s biases. Aside from the writer’s derogatory comments about Ms. Hall, it was refreshing to learn that others share the same opinion of her actions as I do."

– Bob Cutter

"I am a longtime reader of The Telegraph and have been (mostly) entertained by some of the ‘fringier’ letters to the editor you’ve printed.

"I have to say, though, that the Ben Charles’ letter was pretty out there, even for me, whose standards are pretty loose. Any ‘right’ has its limits, and if Mr. Charles didn’t overstep those bounds, he came darn close. At least he had the presence of mind to phrase as a ‘suggestion’ what otherwise would have been considered a direct threat to Ms. Hall."

– Evan Jones

"It is just that: a letter to the editor. I don’t feel weaning out letters is appropriate unless of course they are blatantly crude and/or offensive, i.e. cussing, etc. I feel we all have a right to express our opinions. That is just what they are: opinions. If you tried to appease everyone’s taste in publishing the letters you receive, I fear there would be no letters to the editor column."

– Holly O’Neill

"I would have never printed Mr. Charles’ letter. I have great respect for Betty Hall, although not in agreement with her impeachment proposal. She has served the public for many years and is a very respectful person. And to print something which calls her names and speaks so critically of her was a disgrace. It should not have seen print."

– Shirley Rayburn

"If any controversy is good for readership, then asking the question about whether a letter should or should not be printed is a moot point. But, if you are asking a question about ethics, then that is something that is internally driven within the newspaper, and the newspaper either sees a fiduciary role for itself vis a vis the stewardship of the highest standards as a public voice or it doesn’t."

– Suzanne F. Scholl

"Publishing the Ben Charles’ letter was a serious error of judgment on your part. Of course, if someone objects to an action of one of our representatives, they are free to take issue with the action and express disagreement. Mr. Charles crossed the line between reasonable disagreement and offensive, hateful rhetoric. You violated your own guidelines and subjected a respected community elder . . . to a mean, violent, abusive and insulting attack.

"I think you and The Telegraph owe Rep. Hall an apology."

– Miriam Gillitt Winer

"I think that remarks that derogatorily refer to someone’s age such as "her brain has atrophied" and the rush to "meet your maker" should have been flagged before printing. If the attacks had been racial or gender-based or directed at country of origin, would not they have been flagged or the writer gently suggested to confine his criticism to the legislator’s point of view rather than her person?"

– Dan Wise

As I mentioned in the original column, I don’t take any personal pleasure in publishing these kind of letters. Given my druthers, the letters section would consist of thoughtful, well-reasoned letters about the issues of the day.

By the same token, I’m not sure an arbitrary ban on letters with an attitude would be appropriate, either.
All I can do, then, is pledge that the next time a similar situation arises, I will take into account what each of you had to say.

That doesn’t mean you will all be happy with that decision, of course, but at least you will know that it wasn’t made in a vacuum.

Nick Pappas is editorial page editor at The Telegraph. He can be reached at 594-6505 or npappas@nashuatelegraph.com.