Last week, a cannonade of criticism over an opinion piece by a U.S. senator published in the New York Times resulted in the resignation of James Bennet, that paper’s opinion page editor.

The essay, by Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, a fervent Donald Trump supporter who called for military intervention to quell unrest in the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, contained inaccuracies and was incendiary in intent.

Bennet’s sin, which he admitted, lies in allowing a potentially explosive column to run without even reading it. If the editors who did read the column did not alert Bennet to its inflammatory nature and falsehoods, the greater blame lies with them.

As an editorial writer and longtime editor of the Monitor’s opinion pages, I am aware of how easily, in the crush of news and rush to publish, mistakes can be made.

That said, and hindsight being perfect, I would have argued with my fellow editors in favor of publication.

The nation has but 100 senators. Citizens and voters deserve to know what each of them thinks about the big issues of the day and what actions, for good or ill, each of them take.

In a perfect world, or perfect newsroom, a piece like Cotton’s screed would be put in context. Do others agree with his call for Trump to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard and use the military to quell domestic disturbances? Did the looters, as opposed to the peaceful protesters, really include, as Cotton alleged, “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.” Antifa, short for anti-facist, is not an organized group and has no “cadres.”

Plenty of top-notch journalists disagree with the decision, if indeed there was one, to publish Cotton’s column. Free speech is a founding principle. But some ideas are just too loathsome, undemocratic or immoral to commit to print, many, predominantly younger, journalists say.

There’s some truth in that. What paper, after all, would publish a call for a return to crucifixion as punishment? It would similarly be wrong to publish a piece that advocated for or incited violence.

Some believe that’s what Cotton’s call for the use of troops did. That view, given the numerous accounts of police violence, is understandable.

But I believe it far better that the Arkansas senator express his views publicly, rather than privately to the president, a conversation that we imagine would go something like this: “Go ahead, sir. They’re thugs, criminals, and radicals who are laughing at you. You have the power, use it. Invoke the act. Crush them. Dominate!”

My preference, when using the scales in the marketplace of ideas to weigh free speech and unfettered public discourse against the potential to give offense, is to err on the side of publication. Words that can cause harm by advocating for or inciting violence are another matter, but that is not what Cotton called for.

The invocation of the Insurrection Act, which has been used by presidents in the past, is a fit subject for public discussion. I didn’t agree with the ideas Cotton expressed or the sneering tone of his column, but I would have published it.

(Ralph Jimenez of Concord is a member of the Monitor’s editorial board.)