Free Speech

The letter below rebuts letter writer Steven Grant's Aug. 12 defense of the free-speech rights of controversial public figures such as comedians Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay and members of the Guns N' Roses and Public Enemy bands. Grant argued that "too many times in America's history, (the right of free speech) was abrogated because whoever was speaking wasn't politically correct enough for whoever was defining political correctness at the time." Grant may be unaware that the U.S. Supreme Court, which interprets our laws and Constitution, has carved out exceptions to absolute free speech: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" (1919)

Re "Free speech and pink slips," Opinion, April 19 Patt Morrison's column was a reminder of the period when the House Un-American Activities Committee wrought havoc with newspaper columnists, educators and actors. Morrison touched on the heart and soul of an issue so great and important and with such history that it ought not stop here. I implore her to go on to tell more tales of Americans who have been punished for their thoughts and words in a newspaper. JERRY ARONOW West Hollywood

The 1st Amendment's right to free speech does not require a Utah city to display a religious group's "Seven Aphorisms" next to a monument featuring the Ten Commandments in a public park, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday. Monuments and statues in public parks speak for the government, even if they were donated originally by private groups, the court said. They are not equivalent to a speaker standing in a public park voicing his views.

Earlier this term the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when indigent people camp out in a public park to demonstrate their need for public housing they are not exercising "free speech" within the meaning of the First Amendment. The court held that such demonstrations would not be protected when the executive sought to end them with its police power. Now the Supreme Court has ruled that the act of publicly proclaiming resistance to the draft registration law was not "free speech" within he meaning of the First Amendment.

Re "Free Speech for Firms Too," editorial, July 3: Just get real. Tell me that Nike didn't lie about its labor practices to sell more shoes. All these extensions of constitutional protections to corporations weaken protections for people. Better the corporations just publish "the blandest of platitudes" than protected-and-paid-for lies. Norma Arbisser Los Angeles Corporations are not "persons" under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and therefore are not guaranteed equal protection under the law like you and me. I strongly suggest you take a read through Thom Hartmann's new book, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights."

There are not many times I can write you a compliment regarding editorials in The Times. But your comment (Dec. 18), "Second-Hand Smoke," is an exception. Your editorial regarding the surgeon general of the United States' report regarding the deadly effects of cigarette smoking on people was truly outstanding. Had you asked me to write the editorial, I could not have done so well. B.W. (SONNY) STIRES El Centro

Re "Justices Pick at Campaign Donor Limits," Oct. 6: Am I too skeptical or is the Supreme Court too naive to believe that it is possible for politicians to accept vast sums of money without rewarding the donors in some way? Do they really think that if the money were given anonymously the same amount of money could be collected? JOSEPH GRODSKY Los Angeles It appears that the Supreme Court will reaffirm its earlier decision that money is free speech when applied to elections.

This letter expresses my concern over a recent federal judge's ruling requiring the City of Orange to allow 11 billboards to be erected and to fine the city $1,000 per day if it does not comply. District Court Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. allegedly based his decision on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case. I strongly disagree with Hatter's decision for several reasons: Up to this point, local zoning ordinances to protect safety and community environment have worked successfully across the nation for decades.