Fingers shaking, the man hit the keyboard as he defended his 15-year-old son – a level three sex offender.

His anger was incited by a recent cartoon that ran in the Reporter, which depicted a noose and the words “the only legal loophole fit for a level three sex predator.”

“I want to reach through the computer and choke some common sense into this person,” the Oregon man said of Reporter cartoonist Jeff Johnson in a letter to the editor. He was afraid the cartoon would put his son “one step closer to the edge.”

Though their aim is not to offend anyone, cartoonists have been known to be inconsiderate and to stir quite the controversy. So when I came in to the office after the paper was delivered last week, perhaps I shouldn’t have been so surprised when readers compared us to the Nazis and Ku Klux Klan.

Other readers – from Kirkland and nationwide – criticized the paper itself for encouraging “vigilantism” and advocating a “hate crime.” Many demanded an apology.

Del Jackson, of Ohio, said the cartoon “is one of the most reprehensible displays of journalism” he has ever seen. He also mentioned should anyone in the sex offender population suffer repercussions from “such a public advocation of vigilante justice” that he would file a lawsuit.

Many others disputed that level three offenders – those who have, by definition, already paid debt to society – are less likely to reoffend than level one offenders. An official for the Sex Offenders Solutions and Education Network (SOSEN) responded with statistics: the truly dangerous offenders make up less than 5 percent of the total number on the national registry, according to the Department of Justice; and the No. 1 cause of unnatural death among former offenders is vigilantism.

Another father commented on the Reporter Web site that his 15-year-old son has to live with the sex offender label because he flashed his front side at a passing car with some friends.

On the other hand, a few in the community, including Kirkland resident Donna Rafalski, feel that “innocent lives are destroyed by criminals,” she said in a letter to the editor. Don’t coddle criminals, she urged.

I was most perplexed when Kirkland resident Karen Story asked me why the Reporter allowed the cartoon to run and why we endorsed such a cartoon. My short answer: we don’t. Any viewpoints expressed by our cartoonist or columnists do not reflect those of the paper.

But beyond the seemingly safe answer, Story’s inquiry prodded me to find out why political cartoons really matter in a community newspaper. So I turned to our cartoonist.

“All in all, I consider any opinion piece a success when it heightens the awareness of issues in our collective community,” Johnson said. “Right and/or wrong is not my aim. Getting people to discuss the issues that impact their community is. Mission accomplished.”

Many cartoonists will avow that their work is fundamental to a democracy. It galvanizes opinion and raises the level of debate over a particular issue – in this case, the law regarding level three sex offenders.

No matter what opinions were expressed, the cartoon kick-started a conversation that some may not have otherwise engaged in. It shed light on the issue of sex offenders and contributed to the communal dialogue.

Did the cartoon push the boundaries of free speech? Was it offensive or over the edge? We hope not.

Sometimes political cartoons are not so black and white. But we invite you to keep the conversation going and send us your thoughts.