LETTERS
Council to be lauded for anti-picketing resolution
The Ann Arbor City Council is to be commended for its resolution condemning the practice of picketing houses of worship while services are in session. As a teacher of constitutional law, I would point out that criticism of the measure as censorship stems from a misunderstanding of the concept of free speech. Freedom of speech is not synonymous with a license to engage in speech with no limits whatsoever. We do not call it censorship when the government establishes rules prohibiting the delivery of political commentary via a megaphone in the middle of a symphony concert or on a crowded city bus. The courts have long recognized that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech is consistent with "time, place, and manner restrictions" upon speech. Such a restriction does not censor speech, but merely redirects it. Those who wish to express their views on political issues remain free to do so in a variety of public and private forums. The council resolution merely states the community's belief that it is inappropriate to express political views in a manner that constitutes harassment of those engaged in religious observance.
John A. Rothchild, Ann Arbor
Muslims do not 'hate us for our freedoms'
If you repeat something enough times, some people will accept the message as truth. In my opinion, we are not fighting a global war on terror because "Muslims hate us for our freedom." It seems obvious to me that the terrorist attacks on the United States are the result of our failure to drive a just resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. I do not believe that al-Qaida has thousands of members willing to commit suicide simply because they "hate us for our freedom." How many soldiers need to die and tax dollars are wasted before we address the real problem?
Paul W. Barden, Ann Arbor