ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Perverting the First

| Sunday, Oct. 17, 2004

Dimitri Vassilaros' lament about the FCC's so-called censorship of Howard Stern was a real fount of misinformation ("Stern warning about censorship," Oct. 10).

Tom Taylor of Inside Radio was quoted as saying that it was not listeners who chased Stern off the air, but the government. I beg to differ. I know many people who strongly objected to Stern's perverted, demeaning broadcasts, and made their objections known to the proper authorities.

There is a large group of decent, God-fearing people who do not want "free speech" to be redefined by Stern and liberalitarians. Vassilaros' misunderstanding of the First Amendment is a factor in bringing our country closer and closer to losses of freedom for all.

If he should care to take a real, serious look at our government and the Founding Fathers, he would know that our government structure and laws are based on the Bible.

Our Founding Fathers were 99 percent Christian and never intended for pornography, obscenity and demeaning, abusive speech to be protected by the First Amendment.

We are not dealing with a censorship issue here. We are dealing with a serious moral issue and the degrading and twisting of a wonderful government document.

Christine Martin Brighton Heights

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me