Free speech isn’t a shield
The peace activists who hold American policies and culture responsible for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks air their opinions as free citizens of the United States — writing, speaking and protesting under the protection of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In his letter to the editor “Patriotism means respecting dissent” (ODE, 11/2), Garger accuses me of wanting to deny these peace activists their freedom of speech when I criticized their opinions in my letter to the editor (“Peace activists are hypocrites,” ODE, 10/22).
This is undiluted absurdity. Using the same liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment, I simply conveyed my personal judgment that these peace activists are hypocritical and that their views are outrageous and indefensible.
Suppressing people’s freedom of speech should not be confused with discounting foolish opinions. While I may be disgusted by these peace activists’ repellent views, I also defend their freedom to state them because the First
Amendment is a bedrock of American liberty. The First Amendment is not, however, a shield against denunciation of people who express unpopular or misguided points of view.
Sean Walston
graduate student
physics
‘United We Stand’
oversimplifies issue
On Nov. 5, the United States Postal Service issued a stamp with an American flag along with the phrase “United We Stand” across the bottom. However appropriate this initially seems, the phrase has taken on a damaging, polarizing character.
To suggest all U.S. citizens support the Bush administration’s current policy in Afghanistan stifles public debate, polarizing our country into a “with us or against us” mentality. A united course of action implies those who sway from popular opinion aren’t only unsympathetic to victims, but “un-American.” Censoring discourse, especially at a time when it’s most needed, is to silence the voice of democracy.
During the Vietnam War, we suffered a similar split, where you were either a “warmonger” or a pacifist. The Vietnam War is still fresh in the minds of those who fought the military war and the social and political war at home. The political and military lessons are still humbling influences in our foreign policy.
Lessons of the Vietnam War, however, tend to be forgotten, substituted by an easier-to-swallow version of war, where good versus evil is clearly defined and public support is unanimous. This picture, painted after World War II, led us down the long, bloody road to Vietnam. History may repeat itself if we forget lessons of the past.
As the USPS issues the new stamp, Americans should consider implications of such a limiting statement in a country that prides itself on tolerance and acceptance, and disassociate patriotism with unquestioned allegiance.
Levi Strom
junior
political science, sociology
People have insurance rights
After the grief following a disaster comes another disaster — the reality of insurance claims and a public left in the lurch.
The public deserves access to information about their fundamental insurance claim rights and the rules that govern insurance company behavior, but policyholders will demand that information only if told they have the right to it.
Ask yourself if you have been provided with such information, and then imagine having to file claims after a disaster without it.
Tony Braga
Fall River, Mass