Unrestricted rights

To the Editor:

Our freedom of speech gives Grayson Mobley (and you and me) the right to voice our beliefs, opinions, etc., regardless of what they may be. However, this right, like most of the others, is not unrestricted. If I want to yell “fire” at the top of my voice while in my own home, OK, but if I do that in a dark, crowded theater I am in trouble. A very intelligent man once said, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins”.

If some common sense is not applied to this right, there could be some interesting results. While the instructor is trying to teach science, Grayson wants to inject religion, “Freddie” wants to discuss his deer hunting and “Susan” wants to discuss the latest fashion in blue jeans. Does one have a greater right than all the others? Doesn’t an unrestricted right apply equally to all?

Without these limitations being applied, I would have the right to interject my understanding of linear algebra during a Bible study at the Christian Family Learning Center. But one might ask isn’t there a difference between a private “center” and a public education? Not if this right is unrestricted. If it doesn’t apply in both, there is a restriction. Fortunately, there are understood limitations, perhaps not legal, but common sense.

When a school offers a course in science or music of philosophy, there is an expectation on the part of the enrollee that he/she will get that curriculum. There is a generally accepted curriculum to be covered and precious little time to do it.

I applaud the school board for its position on this issue. The alternative would “open a can of worms” and further erode what limited common sense we find in our society today.

Dr. W. Dean Cunningman

Columbia

Revealing the truth

To the Editor:

I read the letter, “What Russian indictments mean” on March 10, 2018, regarding the Mueller investigation with great interest. I completely agree that he be allowed to complete his work. I am sure there are many of us that want to know the extent of interference in the 2016 election, and who was involved.

In light of this, no doubt the writer will join me in advocating a second investigation to discern the extent of the Obama Justice Department’s culpability in surveilling American citizens, and how involved they might have been in interfering in the last election. I’m sure she would agree that the recent revelations are quite disturbing.

Anyone who has been following it would have to agree that Loretta Lynch and James Comey made such a mess of the probe into Hillary’s email debacle, that, in the interest of the country, we have to start over. Perhaps, while they’re at it, our investigators can take another look at the targeting of citizens by the IRS, and I don’t think we ever got to the bottom of that Fast and Furious fiasco. I realize this may put a dent in our former President’s “no scandal” legacy, but don’t we want the truth?

To the same end, Jill Stein should be commended in her determination to reassure us that the elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania were on the up and up. We should be united in requiring every state to open their election records to settle the question of voter fraud. Who could argue against that? Just think how much better we’ll feel when we know the truth.

This could be a great thing to bring liberals and conservatives together, directing our government to assure us that they can be trusted to reveal the truth.

Guy Emery

Sonora

19832136