Protect free speech
If speech is restricted, then what eventually happens to the media? Maybe we should sit up and take notice of what occurs in other countries regarding the media and also speech. And then notice the erosion of all freedoms.
Who will make the decisions as whether it is "violence-inciting speech?" I have noticed that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Reverend Wright and others receive a free pass but every chance the liberal crowd has, they accuse Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and others of inciting violence or of hate speech. If we limit this type of speech, then it is left open to interpretation and we know where that ends up.
Having stated all of the above, no, I am not for speech that advocates the overthrow of our government.
Never miss a local story.
-- JOHN FAULKNER, Richland
Yes to freedom of speech
In response to this week's question the answer is a resounding yes! Freedom of speech is one of the cornerstones of our civilization and one of the most important guarantees of our Constitution. I think it would be a grave mistake to bend to the threats of a bunch of religious extremists who are so insecure that they can't handle even the smallest slight to their Prophet. We must also realize that these so-called insults to Mohammed are mostly a veiled excuse to cause mayhem and denigrate the West, which has little to do with freedom of speech. One of our wise forefathers, but I can't remember who, once said, "I may not agree with what you say but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." Hallelujah!
Let's all do likewise and stand tall for our freedom of speech. However, I realize that there are reasonable limits, such as not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, but pacifying a bunch of violent jihadists is not one of them.
-- JIM WATKINS, Pasco
Tyranny would prevail
To presume to change the right of free speech in America is one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever seen and is a question that should have never been asked. Our country is the light of the world based on our being a free people in spite of the erosions of our rights the way they were intended. This whole question can be summed up in one sentence: To those of you who wish to give up your right to free speech to appease the tyrants of the world, you deserve the tyranny that they will impose upon you when all of our rights are gone.
May God bless America and continue to protect the rights He endowed us with.
-- DENNIS PERSINGER, Benton City
Protect speech, not violence
Yes, because it covers free speech, period! It does not say specifically about "inciting violence" and that term is undefined in our language. There is a reference to peaceful assembly which means no violence on the part of the speaker or the listener. Speech that might make one angry, even to the point of violence which might mean bodily harm or property damage, is so nebulous is has no exact meaning to any two (or more) listeners.
Provocation (to stir anger) is in the eye of the beholder, therefore, the beholder must control his/her violence or suffer the consequences required by law. When you add the "radical Islam" culture to the American culture they are like oil and water; they don't mix. We pay special attention to the so-called "separation of church and state" in our government and in the Islamic culture they are "one and the same," since the Mullahs truly are the ones who run the country and rule the people.
-- JIM FOSTER, Kennewick