Marc Randazza would support me, right? This morning, I read an article written by the attorney Marc Randazza for CNN and it hit home. I quote: “The First Amendment requires neither tact nor politeness. It requires that we permit all views to set up stalls in the marketplace of ideas, and we let that marketplace decide which ideas prevail.”
It is my right to give my opinion on unsolved cases (as long as I don’t hinder any active investigation, I know!). That means that from all the materials I read and get sent in the mail and email, I get to choose: do I want to write about this case or not?
Because my blog is dedicated to cold cases, people often assume that I will post about every unsolved case.
People often assume that since they emailed me a link to a newspaper article that I must use it in my analysis.
People often assume that since they are related to the victim that they can tell me what to post and how.
Freedom of Speech also applies to blogs. This is my blog and I decide what gets posted. If I find a case interesting but see that the case already has a good web/online presence, I usually do not pick it up. I tend to go for the cases that lack media attention or, where during reading a light bulb switches on my “alternative puzzle brain.”
Freedom of Speech also applies to my opinion on a case. You can agree with me or not. If not, please comment so we can brainstorm about our differences. Who knows, we might actually have found something people have overlooked!
But don’t tell me that I have to take down a post because you don’t like my analysis. Or, because I gave my honest opinion about a certain chain of events. Or, because I disagree with mainstream media and do not think that someone’s guilt has been proven.
It is my right to disagree with you and it is my right to blog about it.
Marc Randazza would agree.