To the Editor:

Free speech is for the most part colored by one’s perceptions and preconceived notions, and inevitably reflect a person’s enduring set of values.  

In fact, it is reasonable to assume that free speech must always be evaluated in these contexts, considering that we are individuals expressing a point of view, which may reveal a particular profession or means of livelihood.

In many cases, a person’s enduring set of values crosses professional lines.

If we are alert to the expression of free speech, we are often surprised that an individual in her/his own right extols the enduring set of values expressed by a renowned person and follows that expression, often, with collaborating deeds.

This is often true of those enduring values like equality, respect for persons, promoting the cause of justice, protecting the earth’s environment, and preserving all that contributes to the utmost good of humanity.

Self-promotion is certainly out of the picture, that which is borne out of greed and selfishness.

To these ends, free speech is one of the most treasured assets we have as human beings because, as far as we know, we are the species endowed with the ability to speak what is in our heart, mind and our whole selves.

Bonifacio Mequi

Killeen

(1) comment

Alvin

This is the personal opinion of this writer.

@Bonifacto Mequi: I tend to agree with you in the fact that, what you have said, 'Free speech is for the most part colored by one’s perceptions and preconceived notions, but I stop with your 'inevitably reflect a person’s enduring set of values'.

It is true that, ' we are individuals expressing a point of view', but that in turn does not reflect a particular profession or means of livelihood', in fact that in certain instances, the reverse can be said to be true.

Copy: 'This is often true of those enduring values like equality, respect for persons, promoting the cause of justice, protecting the earth’s environment, and preserving all that contributes to the utmost good of humanity.' End of copy.

If this was indeed true, then peoples from different cultures, different heritages would not extol their own heritage and culture, but instead hold to this culture and heritage as their own. This is America, the United States of America, and to that end this is the prevailing culture and heritage. But it is not for the most part which equates to the many differences being extolled here in this country today. I direct your attention to the newspaper announcing '150 people from 40 different countries'. You cannot expect to see persons from 40 different countries subjugating themselves to this culture, this heritage. Maybe in limited quantities spaced over time that could occur, but not in this day and age. That's why we are seeing 'Sanctuary City's' all over this nation because with the different attitudes of the fruit salad attitude we now call 'our personage' that come in mass quantity's and differing from what the original constitution called for. So, I differ with you in that your assumption that free speech must always be evaluated in these contexts for I say free speech is only as free as a society allows it to be and there is no consideration for individuals expressing their point of view.

In fact, it is reasonable to assume that free speech must always be evaluated in these contexts, considering that we are individuals expressing a point of view, which may reveal a particular profession or means of livelihood.

And this is being borne out by the suppression of free speech by those who for their own, I call it, 'shortcomings in responsible ideological patterns of vocal speech. It is known by certain individuals that certain speech patterns are not to be tolerated under any circumstances, speech patterns that are called 'politically correct' and is now 'not to be used under any circumstances'. In this respect, freedom of speech is now being strangled by the minority of the public domain, which is contrary to our constitution for it states, for the most part that 'as in a Republic, a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch'. Perhaps the freedom of speech is being strangled by certain individuals who for their own sake do not want freedom of speech and all of it's alienable rights that it purports to maintain.

Whereas in a Democracy, 'a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives'. Perhaps, again, the freedom of speech is being strangled by certain individuals who for their own sake do not want freedom of speech and all of it's alienable rights that it purports to maintain. So every portion of a Democratic Republic, there is some, be it a minority, that will attempt to strangle 'Free Speech', be it openly or hidden in the very concepts by which we stand.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.