Dear Editor,

When the stakes are high…when there is a real threat…should staying silent even be an option?

Martin Luther King Jr had a lot to say on the subject of silence. He said, “There comes a time when silence is betrayal.” And, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” He said that in the struggle for freedom and justice, what we will ultimately remember is “the silence of our friends”.

So are we to be friends to the vast number of Americans whose fundamental rights and livelihoods are on the line at a pivotal time for our nation? Are we to be friends to the communities that we know will be targeted, marginalised, and denied America’s promise of opportunity? Are we to be friends to the planet itself and the lives it supports from the bounty of nature?

Many people would say that when faced with the choice to speak up — to sound the alarm — or to remain silent, that choosing silence is not simply cowardly, it is immoral. I am one of them.

The greatest movements for freedom and justice in the last century were defined by peaceful methods: passive resistance in the civil rights movement and civil disobedience in anti-war efforts, divesting financial support from unjust systems and institutions like South African apartheid.

From rallies to marches, sit-ins, and the above-mentioned tactics, in no way was speaking out ever seen as a call to violence. Shining a light on injustice is necessary, and in a democracy, the most powerful remedy must always — always — be ballots, not bullets. That is why we organise.

It is unacceptable to suggest we are in the middle of a second civil war and that it could tip to violence if one side does not get its way. It is unacceptable to suggest that certain election results could trigger a “bloodbath” or warrant armed insurrection or violence between various groups or factions of Americans.

What else is and should be out of bounds: calling opponents “vermin”, describing them as a disease, referring to certain groups of people as “rats” or less than human, or saying the primary goal of tens of millions of people who might disagree with your politics is the actual destruction of our country.

What is certainly fair game and must remain fair game is vocally sharing the truth, in a matter-of-fact way, about your opposition’s stated agenda and policies and what is at stake with the choices in any given election.

Right now, in the wake of the most recent act of political violence — itself a direct attack on our democracy, to be sure — many far-right media figures and activist leaders are trying to equate fair criticism and discussion of the stakes of this election with violence-inciting rhetoric. It is a scam. And it is yet another attack on our democracy. That is because democracy depends on a certain amount of transparency; the civil, free exchange of ideas and information; and a free press that is not too intimidated to report the facts or shy away from those sounding legitimate alarms.

Calls to suspend valid criticism of any party or candidate are no different than calls to quash dissent or eliminate critical thinking among the members of a society. The mainstream media, from newspapers to networks to online platforms, must fulfil their obligation to the truth and live up to their important role in our democracy. They must not give into cowardice. They must continue to provide a platform for those who tell the truth and continue to report, loudly and clearly, on facts, evidence, and what is at stake for our country.

Ben Jealous

Executive director of Sierra Club