Speech patrol’s Oval Office ally

Re “Laws for the speech war,” Opinion, March 7

The desire to punish is tacit admission that our offenders have succeeded and that we have, in fact, been offended. No selfrespecting person would willingly grant an aggressor such satisfaction. As the aphorism ascribed to Eleanor Roosevelt advises, “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”

By this logic, we certainly should not punish those whose words are spoken without malice.

President Trump would cheerfully abridge free speech if he could. He said, “It is frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write.” Agreeing with this man is dangerous. He owes his election win in no small part to the contempt held by Middle America for the whimpering of the politically correct community. Kevin T. Freeman

Huntington Beach

I don’t believe that the “strict liability” analogy holds water in regard to the speech scenarios explored by Suzanne Nossel.

For example, there were no legal ramifications for people who used the n-word in a course on offensive symbology. Rather, the criticisms that result from these incidents are a natural function of free speech.

I believe we can choose to look at the unintended impacts of speech as opportunities to evolve the conversation. I understand the frustration in needing to discuss offensive speech without being able to use the n-word. However, beginning a class on offensive symbology with that conversation can create a space that allows us to explore those concepts more deeply than before.

Impact trumps intent in the realm of speech, but analyzing that impact is how we evolve. Cora Karamitsos

Arroyo Grande

I suggest that “assumption of risk” be the prevailing standard except in circumstances of personal threat or defamation.

What was the offended University of Maryland undergraduate expecting to hear while attending a lecture on racial slurs? Jewell Jones

San Pedro