FROM: Terry Lynch@aol.com; POB 241035; Montgomery, AL 36124-1035 
Phone: (334) 272-4217 voice  (334) 277-3582 fax via arrangement

DATE:  July 8, 1998 

TO:  Letter to the Editor      

SUBJECT:  D.A.R.E. vs. Glass Has Local Slant

As a scholar particularly interested in issues related to the
First Amendment, freedom of speech, press and religion, I will be 
watching the D.A.R.E. vs. Stephen Glass case with 
extreme interest.

D.A.R.E., an anti-drug group, is suing Glass for defamation 
because Glass allegedly wrote an article containing false 
statements published by Rolling Stone and The New 
Republic, the later of which Glass was a former editor.  The 
suit is for $10,000,000.00 plus punitive damages and all 
expenses.

The outcome of this case is of particular interest to me because 
of how the Montgomery Advertiser handles or fails to 
responsibly administer its editorial page.  It seems that the 
Advertiser is often more concerned with making a profit 
then with publication of the truth.  This occurs because the 
Advertiser censors letters, cutting them to create a false 
word image of what people really say and think in the "Opinions" 
column.

The Advertiser also publishes an inordinate amount of 
religious dogma and Bible quotes, published as fact, combined 
with attacks upon private people apparently designed to please 
religious business persons and churches which advertise in the 
newspaper.  So anyone who voices an opinion against a mainstream 
religious organization is punished by the press by its 
permissive, abusive policy of allowing horrible lies attacking 
personal character. This policy has the long term effect of 
causing people to be silent or suffer public embarrassment by a 
church controlled and influenced press.

I personally do not believe it is fair comment to reprint lies or 
false statements as opinions with regard to the personal belief, 
writings or statements freely submitted by contributors who are 
private citizens and have never held public office or celebrity 
status.  To do so hurts private citizens who may only be trying 
to help educate and inform the public or offer an alternative 
point of view.  But public flogging rather than tolerance seems 
to be how the Advertiser's editorial board operates.

A case in point is the Advertiser's allegedly defamatory 
publication on June 2, 1998.  The letters by Michael C. Gilbert 
and Bob Garrand made a number of false and defamatory remarks 
with respect to yours truly, a private citizen.

People who write and publish lies about private citizens and try 
to discredit others to make their point, to promote their 
religious beliefs or to get some sick thrill by seeing their 
abusive remarks in print had better watch out.  Sooner or later 
the bad karma they are spouting is going to catch up to them in 
the form of a "Truth or DARE" type libel claim.

Sincerely, Terry Lynch
Montgomery, AL