Free Speech

I believe The Sun, along with many other news outlets, misses the major issues regarding the Chick-fil-Astory: Why is there such intolerance for CEO Dan Cathy's personal views, and such disregard for his freedom of speech ("Chick-fil-A gets busted by the thought police," Aug. 2)? In his business practices, the man never treated gay individuals prejudicially, nor did he post his views in his restaurants. Instead, he responded honestly to a direct question about his views on marriage in a few interviews and chose to contribute to organizations that supported traditional family values.

It seems we have reached an odd kind of stage in the United States when the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending by corporate fatcats is permissible "free speech," but Dr. Ben Carson's utterances against gay marriage are considered impermissible bigotry by his employers. I would note that Dr. Carson did not advocate punishment, imprisonment or persecution for same-sex couples; he only questioned their right to marriage, an institution millions of straight Americans have foregone in favor of mere cohabitation.

It seems we have reached an odd kind of stage in the United States when the Supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending by corporate fatcats is permissible "free speech," but Dr. Ben Carson's utterances against gay marriage are considered impermissible bigotry by his employers. I would note that Dr. Carson did not advocate punishment, imprisonment or persecution for same-sex couples; he only questioned their right to marriage, an institution millions of straight Americans have foregone in favor of mere cohabitation.

The positions The Sun's writers have taken recently with regard to free expression have not fulfilled its higher calling to support these paramount values. First, the essential theme of the Sun's April 3 article about Towson University and the white student union ("Towson U. fights back against negative attention") was that the university needed to apologize for not interfering with the attempts of certain students to form a white student union. But the university should have been commended, not condemned, for taking a principled stand in allowing unpopular speech, weak-kneed though its support may have been.

"Come out to vote on November 6. " "Before you come to vote make sure you pay your parking tickets, motor vehicle tickets, overdue rent, and most important any warrants. " That's the text of a flier distributed in African-American and Hispanic communities the weekend before Election Day in 2002 when Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. ran for governor against Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. November 6 would be too late to vote; it was a Wednesday. Failure to pay the rent or parking or motor vehicle tickets is not a barrier to voting; neither is an outstanding warrant.

The positions The Sun's writers have taken recently with regard to free expression have not fulfilled its higher calling to support these paramount values. First, the essential theme of the Sun's April 3 article about Towson University and the white student union ("Towson U. fights back against negative attention") was that the university needed to apologize for not interfering with the attempts of certain students to form a white student union. But the university should have been commended, not condemned, for taking a principled stand in allowing unpopular speech, weak-kneed though its support may have been.

The article, "Free speech clash grips U.N. " (Sept. 25) could also apply to the recent lecture at the Baltimore Council for Foreign Affairs (BCFA), where its president, Frank Burd, caved into pressure from pro-Israel groups and would not allow questions concerning the Middle East during a lecture by University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer. Even though the topic was China, Mr. Burd was evidently afraid that the professor's comments critical of Israel and U.S. policy favoring Israel would offend some of his audience so he limited discussion solely to China, something that he had never done before.

More than anything else, the debacle regarding Westboro Baptist proves how once-powerless people can steer the media to convey their message. Through the prism of modern media we share both very enriching, positive story lines (the Chilean miners) and negative, satanic campaigns (Westboro Baptist Church). While we may detest the way some choose to manipulate media to spread their messages to the masses, we still hold freedom of speech to be one of the most fundamental and necessary building blocks of our great society.

As a Johns Hopkins University alumna, I am deeply disappointed in the school's decision to chide Dr. Benjamin Carson to the point that he has stepped down from delivering the commencement address to the graduating class ("Dr. Ben Carson steps down as speaker at Hopkins graduation," April 11). A university, especially one with Hopkins' vaunted reputation, should stand for the value of free speech in the marketplace of ideas and the respect for diversity that are the hallmarks of a free and civil society.

"No One Murdered Because Of This Image. " That was a recent headline from The Onion, the often hilarious parody newspaper. The image in question is really not appropriate to describe with any specificity in a family newspaper. It's quite simply disgusting. And, suffice it to say, it leaves nothing to the imagination. Four of "the most cherished figures from multiple religious faiths were depicted engaging in a lascivious sex act of considerable depravity," according to The Onion, and yet "no one was murdered, beaten, or had their lives threatened, sources reported Thursday.

Many thanks to the Baltimore Sun for an eloquent editorial on the Ben Carson saga ("Ben Carson and the price of free speech," April 13). This is a work of art! The Sun's staff has captured the essence of free speech with professorial precision. And, have accepted free speech that may be controversial, as long as it stays in context. We also got a lesson in what happens when our so-called free speech becomes aberrant, degrading, and outside the limits of good taste. This piece should also send an alert to those who are steadfast in their defense of Dr. Ben. Loyalty and preconception must be tempered with common sense and reality.

I know it's practically blasphemy in Baltimore to criticize The Johns Hopkins University. But in forcing Dr. Ben Carson out as this year's commencement speaker the powers that be were not only wrong but were trashing his right to free speech and our right to hear him. I may not agree with his positions, but in a democracy he is entitled to state his beliefs, and I have a right to hear them. What the school has done is an insult to the principles of a free democracy. Donald W. Strauss Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts

The recent letters to the editor condemning the criticism that prompted Dr. Ben Carson to step down as the commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine graduation miss a critical point ("Hopkins fails test of free speech," April 12). While Dr. Carson has the absolute right to express his opinion, words have consequences. And just as it was Dr. Carson's right to speak his mind or, if he is to be believed, to misspeak it, it is also the right of the university to criticize him and the right of the student body to express their collective desire that he not speak at their graduation.

It is not necessary for me to explain why the controversy over Dr. Benjamin Carson's remarks on same-sex marriage and the protests over his selection as a commencement speaker at Johns Hopkins do not represent an attack on his First Amendment rights of free speech. The Baltimore Sun , in an editorial , has already done so: "The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress (and by extension, state and local governments) from passing any law to inhibit free speech. As such, Dr. Carson is free to believe and say whatever he likes without fear that the government will take action to sanction him as a result.

As a Johns Hopkins University alumna, I am deeply disappointed in the school's decision to chide Dr. Benjamin Carson to the point that he has stepped down from delivering the commencement address to the graduating class ("Dr. Ben Carson steps down as speaker at Hopkins graduation," April 11). A university, especially one with Hopkins' vaunted reputation, should stand for the value of free speech in the marketplace of ideas and the respect for diversity that are the hallmarks of a free and civil society.

There is much we don't know about Dr. Ben Carson's decision to withdraw as a commencement speaker for the Johns Hopkins schools of medicine and education. His recent comments in opposition to gay marriage, in which he compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, prompted a petition from some Hopkins students for him to be removed as a speaker. The dean of the Hopkins med school wrote a letter condemning the remarks, and Dr. Carson apologized. What happened between that series of events and his decision to step down - whether he faced additional pressure, by whom and how - will likely remain a mystery.

State Del. Jon Cardin's recent op-ed ( "Force greater disclosure in Maryland," Dec. 24) regarding campaign finance left the unfounded impression that employers have a disproportionate voice in deciding elections and that the General Assembly must act to address this perceived threat. Unfortunately, there was little data provided, other than one Congressional election, and that did not support his assertion. Of the "nearly $4 million" in spending by outside groups in Maryland's 1st Congressional District race, over 60 percent of the money came from the Congressional campaign committees of the Democratic and Republican parties.

On weekday mornings, I'll post the most controversial, shocking and (of course) ridiculous stories for your reading pleasure. That way, when you walk into work, you'll be the master of witty conversation. National  • A crackdown on free speech: China imprisons writers, bloggers critical of government,  including country's most famous artis t. (Washington Post)   • Free speech run amok: Koran-burning pastor feels  no responsibility for deaths in Afghanistan . (ABC News)

In his column ("Campus liberals run amok," Feb. 24), Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a former congressman, stated the following: "Politically correct speech codes barring 'offensive expression' continue unabated on many campuses. Such policies chill expression (protected by the First Amendment) that might be found offensive - to any and all. " Without commenting on the validity of his "run amok" argument, I should like to point out that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I read with keen interest The Sun's editorial, "An unjustified ban" (Feb 4), regarding efforts to keep Baltimore activist Kim Trueheart out of City Hall. The editorial makes several interesting, solid and instructive points for Ms. Trueheart and other private citizens who regularly attend City Hall seeking to hold top officials accountable. I was totally dismayed, however, as to how The Sun could side with City Hall and the police over Ms. Trueheart, inasmuch as the facts in the case clearly show that Ms. Trueheart did nothing wrong or unlawful to warrant the police placing her under arrest.