Chelsea Manning’s visit

I’m all for free speech. However, it comes with some restrictions. Would the wider public have welcomed the likes of Hitler in the earlier 1930s or a current Muslim cleric preaching hate and death to non-believers now? I think not, but this is free speech! Secondly, Chelsea Manning has serious convictions in the US related to treasonous actions against her own people’s government. Her beliefs, right or wrong, are widely available online; no need to come here to suck speaking fees out of the public.

Rod Page, Island Bay

Former immigration minister Michael Woodhouse has a lot to say about the possible visit of Chelsea Manning. He rabbits on about Manning coming here to make money, which is rich coming from a political reject receiving a fat pay cheque courtesy of us taxpayers. Woodhouse talks about her wanting to be hailed a hero, which is what people do when they have no substantial argument – they make stuff up. I really take offence when politicians purport to have the voice of the people when in fact they are following their own agenda. I would suggest the majority of New Zealanders don’t consider Manning a criminal at all.

Dean Burrows, Eastbourne

Free speech rights, in our society, come with other rights. They include freedom not to speak, freedom to listen and freedom not to listen. Often, when things we don’t want to hear are said, we choose not to listen. We don’t restrict the rights of others who do want to listen, and we don’t stop people speaking just because we are annoyed.

Sometimes the right not to listen is ineffective. Utterances such as neighbours playing loud music at 3am, someone shouting ‘‘fire’’ in a crowded theatre, or words unable to be parried the way a blow from a taiaha can be parried, are examples. Restricting them can be legitimate.

But if you dislike what Don Brash, Chelsea Manning or Lauren Southern say, you have a perfectly adequate response in the right not to listen. It is a pity some MPs, who have more free speech rights than the rest of us, don’t adopt this view, and instead campaign for a speaker to be suppressed. They would do better to exercise their freedom not to speak.

David Wright, Wellington