Consider the Source

Re “Free-Speech Ruling Boon for Abortion Foes,” March 29: If I made a Web site with “wanted” posters of President Bush or Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft that implied (not threatened, but implied) they were targets worthy of destruction due to their beliefs, would the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals support my 1st Amendment right to publish their pictures, schedules, home and work addresses, even what type of vehicle they drive? Would the judges themselves not feel threatened if it were their own pictures on the “wanted” posters, as opposed to the physicians providing legal abortions?

The difference between free speech and fear lies in the source of the implied threat. The anti-choice side of the abortion issue has shown itself in too many instances to be not just offensive, but deadly. I have never heard of a pro-choice gunman shooting up the house (or bombing the workplace) of an anti-choice activist. As the anti-choice side is the source of the implied threat, the Web site goes beyond offensive and heads toward deadly.

KELLY DAVIS

Huntington Beach