Resolution on College Speech

* In the exercise of my First Amendment right of expression, I take great exception to the view of Nat Hentoff (Column Left, March 8), that the condemnation by Congress of the rabidly anti-Semitic and racist remarks of Nation of Islam spokesperson Khalid Abdul Muhammad were inconsistent with the constitutional right of free speech.

The First Amendment provides that, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” By contrast, the congressional condemnation of Muhammad’s Kean College speech took the form of a non-binding resolution, not a piece of legislation. It was therefore a measured and much-needed response to Muhammad’s blood libel of the Jewish people and his call for the death of whites (including children and the disabled). Indeed, in this most powerful of democracies, it is not just the right but the duty of a free Congress to repudiate Muhammad’s message with the nonviolent weaponry of words.

Hentoff quotes with approval the fears of Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), that throughout the world, Muhammad’s speech will now forever be known as one “condemned by the U.S. Congress.” Such a possibility fills me with pride, not fear. One can only wish that the Congress of the 1930s had condemned the fighting words of Adolf Hitler with the same language found in the resolution now bemoaned by Hentoff. How many innocent people--Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, gays and others--might then have been saved?

BRUCE J. EINHORN

Agoura Hills

* As a writer, I am generally in agreement with Hentoff’s unequivocal defenses of free speech. But his criticism of Congress’ resolution condemning the address given by Muhammad is just mystifying to me.

Members of Congress can certainly be hypocritical, insincere and muddle-headed, but as long as what they’re doing doesn’t have the force of law, I don’t think there’s much to be concerned about. Impotent resolutions like the one they passed here amount to nothing more than speech countering speech. Hentoff’s concern that congressional condemnation of speeches might lead to a chilling effect on speech ignores this point. Congress can resolve to its heart’s content, and as long as that’s all it’s doing, and Hentoff or anyone else can resolve right back at them. It’s only when Congress legislates about speech that we should start to worry.

DAVID LINK

Los Angeles