Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

Tag: free speech

Dec.
5th

TAXES: All non-profits deserve break

Re: “IRS shouldn’t allow churches to disregard tax law,” (editorial, 12-2).

I realize editorials are all about opinion, but I expect better from The News Tribune. When you don’t address the real issues, you just inflame peoples existing prejudices. There other non-profit organizations that pay no taxes and yet have the freedom to make political endorsements (like unions).

Why are churches limited in their free speech? Why would a journalist want to limit others’ free speech? Why don’t we eliminate all non-profit tax breaks and plug the budget hole at the county jail?

These organizations exist to make all of

Read more »

Sep.
19th

TNT: Free speech is widely misunderstood

Re: “Krauthammer critics would squelch free speech” (letter, 9-19).

The writer defends columnist Charles Krauthammer against his critics., claiming they are infringing on Krauthammer’s constitutional right to free speech. In so doing, the writer reveals an all too common misunderstanding of free speech.

The United States Constitution prevents only the government from restricting the people’s right to speak freely. The Constitution does not require that other people have to listen to you.

For instance: No newspaper is required to print anything stated by anybody; but that doesn’t stop anyone from speaking.

No business, organization, corporation or even a governmental employer

Read more »

June
24th

GUNS: Two letters revealing about freedom

My praise to the recent letter writer (TNT, 6-21) for pointing out so well the difference between liberty and license and that even in a free society there are rules that we must all live by and balances that must be struck. Bravo.

I also was struck by the irony of a letter (TNT, 6-24) sent in opposition to that viewpoint which criticized the newspaper for publishing the letter. So much for free speech.

We are free to live in a society that permits uncontrolled access to firearms, but not in one that permits uncontrolled discussion about firearms.

April
7th

ELECTIONS: McCutcheon ruling amounts to poll tax

The recent McCutcheon ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated limits on donations for candidates and political committees on the basis that they are limits on the free speech of wealthy people. What about the limits on free speech for the rest of us? We are all limited by the amount of money we can afford to give.

The courts have long recognized that a poll tax is a limit on one’s ability to vote. It is considered unconstitutional, because we all have the right to equal treatment under the law, i.e., we all have an equal right to vote,

Read more »

April
4th

ELECTIONS: Citizens are being disenfranchised

Re: “High court ruling lifts lid on campaign donations” (TNT, 4-3).

The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court is a takeaway from the average citizen with limited means. If money is free speech, then the financially less endowed are immediately put at a disadvantage.

The ability of all citizens to engage in this mockery of the First Amendment is now controlled by how rich or not rich you are. If, as the Constitution says, we are all born equal, then no other consideration of free speech need apply. If we are all born equal, then only non-monetary free

Read more »

March
22nd

CENSORSHIP: Free speech a thing of the past in Los Angeles

The Los Angeles City Council passed a resolution on Wednesday which is an affront to all that is sacred in these United States of America. It states, in part, that the City of Los Angeles is to be “… first in the nation to declare derogatory, sexist, misogynistic and racist language as having no place on public airwaves in one of the most diverse cities in the world.”

Apparently the City of Los Angeles has seceded from the United States of America and the Constitution, which ensures their treasured “diversity.”

Let me be “first in the nation to declare derogatory,

Read more »

Jan.
18th

SPEECH: Political rhetoric is a civil right

The editorial on nasty political rhetoric (TNT, 1-14) condemned “political hyperbole, sarcasm, name-calling and mud-slinging” without acknowledging one overriding fact: It’s constitutionally protected free speech.

While name-calling is rude, it’s a civil right; free speech isn’t limited to restrained speech. Of course, calling out a name-caller is also a civil right, since the free-speech sword cuts both ways. Knock yourself out.

As the culture has become more coarse, so has communication in it become harder, sharper and more shrill. But you can’t dismissively attribute this to “the Internet, shout radio, attack television and other rage amplifiers.” Been to a slasher

Read more »