The case against inflicting harm

Re “The right to hate,” editorial, Nov. 12

The 1st Amendment protects your right to yell “fire,” but when you do it under false pretense in a crowded theater, you have stepped beyond the limits of that protection. Likewise, when lunatics group together to wail and protest about things they dislike and believe to be beyond the boundaries of social acceptability, those rights should be protected; but when they invade the privacy and sanctity of a family mourning the loss of a loved one, particularly one who died for their country, the funeral becomes that theater and they are yelling “fire” under false pretense and have stepped beyond the limit.

Michael Hagerty

Piatra Neamt, Romania

--

What is ethical, humane or even logical about supporting hate? Opinions are always one’s own, but throwing them in someone else’s face to hurt them should never be legal. If the Constitution protects this right, then it should be amended. A private event is not the venue to express a self-entitled harangue, and if money provides the only deterrence to this human indecency, then it must be used. No one in a civilized society should have the right to hurt an innocent person, with weapons or words, to satisfy his own selfish gratification.

I am shocked and disappointed by your editorial. Don’t damage our precious right to free speech by promoting the legalization of bullying.

Teresa Nield

West Hills

--

The Westboro Baptist Church is no more protected by the 1st Amendment from accountability for its hateful, harmful speech than it would be protected by the 2nd Amendment if its members shot the mourners. Claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress require conduct so outrageous as to be beyond what civilized people should be required to endure. The Constitution permits you to engage in such conduct without government intervention. Thankfully, it does not render powerless the people harmed.

Arlan A. Cohen

Pasadena