I read Mr. Paquin's amusing letter in the Dec. 29 edition defending Mr. Carl Avrit. Paul Revere was certainly a patriot and Mr. Avrit may be very patriotic but that has nothing to do with following state law and the guidelines established by the state Ethics Board.

Paul Revere did not get anonymous phone tree messages communicating incorrect, sensational and misleading information. As Paul Revere rode through the streets announcing his warning, the citizens could identify him. Historical records show Revere to have been correct, as the British did indeed come.

History, also, in the form of the state Board of Ethics review, shows Mr. Avrit was not correct in the manner in which he chose to communicate his views.

I agree with Mr. Paquin's assertion that it is not wrong to encourage people to vote. There are reasonable limits to free speech to protect the public. One can't yell out a false fire alarm in a full theatre.

The rule in this circumstance requires, as a condition of free speech, that the originator of the information, having paid a business which autodials and relays a taped message, must identify themselves. Reasonable, yes; also it would not have cost the originator of the message anymore to do what was required.

Mr. Avrit was and is entitled to express his views. It would be nice if they were true and accurate, but regardless they are his opionions.

Was this, in Mr Paquin's words, “a fateful decision”? Yes, Mr. Avrit made his decision and fate judges the consequences. Was it pariotism? Come on! I choose not to consider situational ethics as being patriotic.

Cary Rogers
Peachtree City

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page