Whatever happened to free speech?
I have to say I’m uncomfortable with the ever-expanding definitions of “free speech,” by which lewdness, vulgarity and hate have become so pervasive in our society. But columnist Cynthia Allen (“Angry confrontation spoils chance to learn, grow,” Saturday) laments that the current practice of stifling someone’s freedom to speak with obscenities and mob violence has also gone too far.
She noted that a California congressman has decided to meet with just a few of his constituents at a time in his office, where they each have the freedom to air their concerns. So now he is criticized for not exposing himself to protests. He is merely providing a venue for unhindered free speech that the protesters want to suppress by disrupting and shouting down the speaker.
Did I miss the elimination of free speech from the Constitution? Why do these presumptuous protesters think they hold the right to determine what is heard and not heard? And where has civility gone?
Karen Hipsher Hilliard husband and me the freedom and security to pursue our entrepreneurial dreams, and we’re worried about what repeal means for the future of our businesses.
The affordable coverage that I receive through the individual exchange has allowed me to reallocate funds normally spent on health care to invest in my growing business. Thanks to the ACA, we’ve been able to hire two new employees, who also receive coverage through the exchange, and have expanded the business from local ventures to national urban design projects.
In fact, our success has allowed my husband to quit his job to pursue his own dreams of becoming a business owner, which wouldn’t have been possible without the ACA. But if it’s repealed, one or both of our businesses will have to close so we can find employer-sponsored coverage. We’re just one example of how the ACA is promoting entrepreneurship and driving economic development in local communities and beyond. We urge Congress to fix the law, not repeal it.
Amanda Golden Columbus Russia,” without mentioning that they were Muslims.
I cannot believe that was an accidental omission on his part. But even if it were, his next statement was patently false and I would like to correct the record. The second-most heinous act of terrorism on U.S. soil was not perpetrated by “a couple of gun-toting, right-wing, white guys” as Howard alleges.
I can only conclude that he was referring to the Columbine shootings. The second-most heinous act of terrorism on U.S. soil was perpetrated by Omar Mateen when he gunned down 49 people at the Pulse night club in Orlando. For Howard’s information, by the way, Mateen was a Muslim. Westerville
Lenny Kolada Bexley