Why <i> PC</i> Spells Political Controversy : IT’S CENSORSHIP

When, for example, a revered symbol of God’s extended hand of friendship to all people everywhere is immersed in a vat of urine for the sake of art (and protestations ensue from the conservative camp), The Times makes sure the voice heard most insistently and persistently is that of the artist’s defenders--anti-Christian agenda-setters whose ardor for deposing traditional values is exceeded only by their professions of love for the First Amendment.

It has been drilled into me by you and them that I must not only tolerate but also support such expressions of contempt for my Lord, no matter how offensive I happen to find them.

But now I learn that no tolerance will be shown me in the event I use art of my own (a movie script, say) to shine an unflattering light back at fundamental Christianity’s detractors from various PC-sanctioned groups. The upshot of Pristin’s gutless article is that I’d be a fool to expect Hollywood’s First Amendment rights crowd to rush to defend politically incorrect me.

Indeed, The Times’ failure to do its usual thing with a story like this--to come down hard and fast on the infringers of free thought and expression--amounts to hypocrisy of the smelliest kind.

RICH SMITH

Whittier

Times staff writer Terry Pristin’s article on political correctness in Hollywood, “The Filmmakers vs. the Crusaders” (Dec. 29), has struck a nerve with readers. A sampling of their views.