Defending First Amendment rights





I feel that I must respond to the letter written by Bill Draeger who seems to advocate the limiting of First Amendment rights to those with whom he does not agree.

He condemns Patricia Standring’s written position that Republicans were somehow involved in the 9/11 attack. Mr. Draeger has every right, guaranteed by the First Amendment, to express his opinion. Draeger wants to equate Strandring’s written opinion with someone yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Yelling fire in a theater has a high probability of causing bodily harm to those present. Standring’s written opinion has, at best, the possibility of raising one’s blood pressure and/or creating the need to consume a few extra Tums. I find this comparison ludicrous.

Draeger finds Standring’s position to be “sheer lunacy” and suggests that her First Amendment rights be waived. This is a slippery slope. How does one define “sheer lunacy” in terms of the limitation of one’s civil rights?

I believe that eliminating anyone’s civil rights over the written expression of an opinion to be “sheer lunacy.” That being said, by Mr. Draeger’s standards, should his civil rights also be abridged?

As far as Patricia Standring’s statements are concerned, it has become painfully apparent that the Bush administration was heavily involved in abrogating both human rights and civil rights, and as the mainstream media is beginning to report, this is probably only the tip of the iceberg.

The Bush administration has been accused of unprecedented secrecy, dishonesty and dishonor. Is Ms. Standring’s position such a stretch?

Hopefully, time will tell, but under no circumstance should her civil rights be in any way challenged because of her opinion.
Rob Sack
Agoura Hills



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *