Article Downplays Dangers of Censorship

Dear Editor:

I was disturbed to read “Intolerant Speech Threatens Minority Free Expression” by Ian S. Port. It was distressing to see a journalist arguing for restrictions of the press. The first question that comes to mind is who would set the restrictions? It cannot be Congress because it is explicitly banned from doing so by the First Amendment. It can’t be the states because they are explicitly banned from doing so by the 14th Amendment. So who is left to set up these restrictions Ian S. Port is advocating? The city of San Diego? The administration? The A.S. Council? The editorial board of the Guardian? The Koala? I don’t know about you but I don’t trust any of these institutions, just as the founding fathers did not trust Congress.       

The next question that needs to be addressed is what should be the penalties for speech that Ian S. Port deems to be “hateful.” There are three choices:

1. Jail (this has worked very well in Cuba).

2. Cutting out the tongue of the transgressor (anyone who has read Ayn Rand’s “Anthem” knows that this technique was effective for that society.)

3. Death.

Anything less would not work, because Bryan J. Barton will be the one breaking the law of Ian S. Port. And those would be the only three ways to stop me.

I live in the United States of America for a reason. And that reason is, the founders of this country set up limits on governmental power. And limiting the government’s power of censorship was the First Amendment.

—Bryan Barton

John Muir College Alumnus