Free Speech

WEATHER The National Weather Service is calling for Wednesday to be cloudy, with a high near 83 and a 70 percent chance of precipitation. Wednesday night is expected to be cloudy, with a low around 66 and a 60 percent chance of precipitation. TRAFFIC Check our traffic updates for this morning's issues as you plan your commute. FROM LAST NIGHT Kamenetz blames Recher for weekend Towson melee : Baltimore County Executive Kevin Kamenetz blamed the Recher Theatre on Tuesday for a weekend event that drew unruly crowds to downtown Towson, where several police officers were injured and one man was shot.

President Barack Obama's rousing defense of American free speech and the First Amendment at the United Nations this week made his country proud. In the context of rioting in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam video, the message was overdue: In a free society, even hateful messages are protected, and placing restrictions on speech helps lead to political oppression. That's not to suggest Americans endorse the video in question and its smears against the Prophet Muhammad. But the proper response to vile, awful messages is not violence, or the threat of violence, but more speech that will, as Mr. Obama observed, "lift up the values of understanding and mutual respect.

"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.

Regarding your editorial, "Libya Attacks: Romney has a point" (Sept. 13), there's no debate that freedom of speech is a core value that should be defended in the United States and supported around the world. The question in this case is the context. The obvious purpose of the film insulting Islam was to incite a strong reaction from radicals in the Middle East. Why else would it have been put on the Internet? Those who distributed the film did so for reasons of hate, and this was rightly condemned by President Barack Obama.

In your editorial on the responses to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya, you say that the Obama administration's message should have focused on our belief in free speech for everyone ("Romney has a point," Sept. 13). I agree that it would be fine to say that one on one or at a meeting when everyone was calm. In the situation as it was, they just wanted to calm the atmosphere and calm down the people. If you were there, would you have said, "You have right to free speech, and here we are right over this wall.

It's been a tough week for Maryland politicians who misspeak badly and then have to correct themselves. First, there was Gov. Martin O'Malley and his lame excuses for his "no" to the "are you better off than four years ago" question while defending President Barack Obama on national television, and then Rep. Roscoe Bartlett invoked the Holocaust in explaining the federal student loan program's allegedly unconstitutionality, a truly outrageous comparison...

Regarding Charlotte Eliopoulos' letter, we all have the right to freedom of speech, even if that means protesting a business owner's beliefs. We also are free not to support his franchises ("Chick-fil-Acontroversy raises free speech issues," Aug. 7). If company CEO Dan Cathy wants to express his beliefs I accept his right to have them, but he also has to accept my choice not to purchase his products anymore. Joseph Kortash, Catonsville

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.

With so many tens of millions of dollars flowing into political campaigns anonymously this year, it's hard to believe anyone would oppose some minimum level of disclosure. After all, it was Justice Anthony Kennedy who wrote in the infamous Citizens United ruling that "transparency" would ensure that voters could make "informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages. " But those who might have assumed that even the most self-interested politician would be able to detect the threat to democracy posed by unlimited and undisclosed giving to political campaigns have probably never seen theU.S.

Your letter writers insist ad nauseum that the Catholic Church should not be involved in politics. This is absurd. Even Michelle Obama said recently that the issues presently confronting us are not only political in nature but are also moral questions that should be discussed in church. People who are ordained do not give up their constitutional right of free speech, nor the right to profess their religion and practice it. Mary Yvonne Dilworth, Parkville