Inconsistent editorial moderation at Gazette

Imagine my surprise at seeing Phil Cox's letter “Where are the godless communists now?” in the Sept. 13 Gazette, where he asserts there is no difference between progressivism, socialism, and communism, and that the Democrats are “the party of abortion and buggery (which) is the new home of godless communists.” Cox is entitled to his opinion, as is The Gazette in making the editorial choice to publish his letter. I suppose Cox is making a feeble attempt to emulate Winston Churchill's famous description of British naval tradition as “run, sodomy, and the lash.”

What struck me as contradictory, given my status as a person who was banned from the commenting on The Gazette's online page for ostensibly being uncivil, was the very incivility of Cox's remarks, The Gazette's editorial decision to publish, and The Gazette's ongoing struggle to regulate online commenting. Make no mistake: Cox is defending anti-gay prejudice in order to implicitly advocate denying LGBT people civil rights and equality under the law.

However, The Gazette also erred: Would a similar letter demanding the denial of civil rights to Jews, or blacks or atheists have seen print? Would such a comment have made it through moderation if posted online? The Gazette has so severely restricted online commenting as to make my request for reinstatement no more than a gesture of opposition to editorial authority exercised arbitrarily and inconsistently.

Jeff Klinzman

Coralville