Right to criticize is fundamental to democracy

Sean Parnell, President, Center for Competitive Politics - Alexandria, Va.

The seeming indifference by the Obama administration toward free speech is more troubling than commentary writer Jonathan Turley's excellent opinion piece describes ("Just say no to blasphemy laws," On Religion, The Forum, Monday).

This year, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart argued in front of the Supreme Court that the government could ban books that referred to politicians and had been paid for by a corporation. Nearly all major publishers, of course, are corporations.

Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Health and Human Services launched an investigation and ordered Humana to cease engaging in political speech when it dared to criticize health care reform proposals.

The right to speak out and criticize politicians, government, religion, or other important institutions and ideas is fundamental to our system of government, which is why it is protected by the First Amendment.

The Obama administration should reconsider its too-frequent tolerance of speech suppression and embrace the uninhibited free speech of all citizens.

You can't legislate respect
Lawrence Bowden - Lynchburg, Va.

How refreshing to read commentary writer Jonathan Turley's opinion on blasphemy laws. What a pass we've come to: an imposition of law to protect people from being offended.

We cannot legislate basic human respect, civility in discourse, or sensitivity to the feelings of others. These qualities are what make us human, and they are beyond the reach of law.

I may be offended by much of what some radio disc jockey utters. He might hurt my feelings with ridicule and disrespect of things I hold sacrosanct. But because I am offended, does he deprive me of my right to express my own values freely?

I don't think so.

I might also be offended by the way he looks. He might be repulsive to the eye. I might consider his physical appearance a bad influence on my children. So should we consider imposing some laws to protect us from this kind of offensive visual assault? Obviously not.

What makes "religion" or the "religious" so needy that they must be protected from criticism, satire or even ridicule? If there is a God, I suspect that God is quite capable of taking care of itself. And if there isn't, then why protect superstition?

Message of freedom
Jerry Lee Holt - Minneapolis

God does not need human protection. He (or she) is powerful enough to defend himself if necessary.

I am a committed follower of Jesus and believe he is the most significant person in human history. I find his words and deeds, as recalled in the Sermon on the Mount and the Gospels, compelling. Embedded in his actions, implicitly and explicitly, is a radical commitment to free will and expression. His commitment to freedom goes so far as to permit people who disagreed with him to abuse him verbally and physically. He surrendered to be crucified. He did not curse his oppressors but asked God to forgive them.

I prefer Jesus' critics to be respectful of him and the symbols associated with him. However, I believe it is contrary to his life and teachings to, in any way, attempt to muzzle detractors, regardless of how offensive I find them. He taught his followers to "turn the other cheek" in response to insults. He illustrated this teaching with his death. I am wise when I follow Jesus' example, even when it is uncomfortable and inconvenient.

I wish more people were like him.

(Illustration by Alejandro Gonzalez, USA TODAY.)

Posted at 12:10 AM/ET, October 23, 2009 in Free Speech - Letters, Letter to the editor

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/ ... .html#more