"Civility Not Censorship"

1. The first six words of the first line, "Civility in public discourse is important" shows what Chavez believes is the correct method for speaking in public: civility. These words are also used to show what should be done, and how this notion of "civility" should not be taken into extreme by excluding any possible word that might cause offense.
2. People have suggested that words like "target" and "in the cross hairs" should not be used because they imply shooting or war. According to them, this could be considered offensive in light of the recent Arizona shooting. Chavez used the word "bellicose", meaning war-like, to describe many other words that have war roots, like "campaign" and "rounds," to show that banning every word that might imply some form of violence would be nearly impossible and would limit the English language greatly.
3. Chavez is trying to persuade the reader that words should not be banned to be politically correct but that politicians and public speakers should use civility in how they speak, meaning not using certain words to degrade or harshly criticize others. Chavez used the example of John King on CNN apologizing for his guest using the words "in the cross hairs" so close to the Arizona shooting. She continued in the next paragraph with how Loughner's shootings had nothing to do with words. This is one of the best examples she provides in her article about how censorship of words not meant to be used to degrade or offend does not make sense.
4. I agree with Chavez. As long as one thinks before one speaks, one should not have to worry about if a particular word will offend someone if the intent was not to offend (however, if the word is vulgar, it should be omitted).

Chavez's article: "Civility Not Censorship"