Letter: Spot-on editorial
Your editorial on the First Amendment’s protection of even hateful speech was right on.
When the states, by their legislatures, approved the new Constitution in 1789, they also demanded the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states, in relevant part: “Congress shall make no law abridging … the freedom of speech ….”
The First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech means government cannot prevent individuals or groups from communicating their messages, no matter how repugnant.
It does not obligate anyone to listen. You can personally boycott any speaker or writer.
But, what about a speaker’s opponents who shout, threaten or attack the speaker or audience, effectively cancelling any communication? It is government’s obligation to protect all citizens (even white supremacists) from violence or intimidation in any context. If government fails to meet this obligation, First Amendment rights are denied to those targeted.
Valid communication only works by presenting evidence and reasoned, logical argument. Those who engage in shouting and intimidation thereby prove that they have neither evidence nor valid argument to support their position. They are ignorant and should be treated as such. Too bad so many college administrators don’t get this.
David Bergland, Kennewick
This story was originally published August 25, 2017 at 6:05 PM with the headline "Letter: Spot-on editorial."