Disappointed in letter supporting racists, rather than victims of racism: Letters
Disappointed in letter supporting racists, rather than victims of racism
Jan. 25 − To the Editor:
I am replying to the letter titled, "White nationalists' racist sign is free speech protected by 1st Amendment":
As a long time Rye neighbor of the writer of the above letter, I don't appreciate his writing in support of the racists, rather than the victims of racism, nor do I consider his opinion qualified to advise us all of the First Amendment, in your letter published Jan. 23.
To quote your letter: "On July 30th a small group of white nationalists affixed a banner to the Stark Street bridge over Route 1 in Portsmouth. The banner stated “Keep New England White”. The basic test for protected speech vs. unprotected speech is would the banner “incite imminent lawless action” and was it “likely to incite or produce lawless action”? The simple unconvoluted answer is no.
"The NH Civil Rights Act under which the NH Attorney General has charged the two leaders of the white nationalist group with trespass onto public property (crossing the sidewalk on a public bridge and affixing a sign?) with a racial motivation (the sign) and wants a $5,000 fine from each of two leaders and from the organization. The Attorney General is banning free speech and that is not permissible no matter how uncomfortable or how abhorrent the message absent the imminence of violence.
"It seems the only case is a case of posting a sign on public property without a permit."
It saddens me to read your letter, especially in light of the violence in our country right now. Little pockets of "free speech" and their racist writers are popping up everywhere, within our neighborhoods, on our roadsides and within our communities, as you know. Your letter is out of touch with what has made New England and NH strong since the 1840's when New England became the center of the anti-slavery movement. Let’s stop pedaling backward.
JoAnn Hodgdon
Rye
When it comes to sound barriers, 'equity' seems to mean all school children suffer equally
Jan. 28 − To the Editor:
In a letter dated Dec. 20, 2022, NHDOT responds to Portsmouth’s inquiry as to whether Portsmouth can provide funds to NHDOT for the construction of a noise barrier at the New Franklin school. NHDOT denied Portsmouth’ s offer with the following explanation. “……for reasons of equity and social justice, Federal Law prohibits the use of third-party funding to subsidize a noise barrier that would not otherwise meet the Department’s Noise Policy.”
Equity and social justice have different meanings for different people. For Joe Biden (United States President) and Pete Buttigieg (United States Secretary of Transportation) equity and social justice mean underprivileged, normally privileged and overprivileged school children all must suffer the same.
Mark Brighton
Portsmouth
We can reduce mass shootings by reducing easy access to guns
Jan. 25 − To the Editor:
There are far too many instances of mass shootings and gun violence. As the police and various law enforcement agencies try to establish a motive which is interesting but a waste of effort.
There are far too many idiosyncratic reasons for these violent acts: jealousy , hurt feelings, mental illness, schizophrenia , etc. regardless of the motivations the most common unifying factor is easy access to fire arms. The harboring of vengeful feelings changes when a gun of any type is introduced. A self centered belief in one's cause and righteousness in made more powerful. And based on 20 years of research ( University of Texas) the good guy with a gun stopping the slaughter is a very rare event.
These last six months we have hosted a teenage high school student from Rome. As part of the American experience he was in a school lock down event and I took him to Kittery Trading Post to the gun sales department. His reaction was instructive as he was scared by the volume of guns that could be purchased. this is not allowed or legal in Italy. I felt the same way as it was definitely slanted to military looking weapons. There was also the pink, green and purple sections for young girls to be seduced into candy colored firearms.
And in an effort not to participate in the violence, Dick's Sporting Goods no longer has a gun sales department. I’ll go there with my dollars.
Answers? I have a few, but for now all the interest in why is a useless pursuit that’s great for the news cycle and nothing more. We can’t legislate our way out of mental illness or disgruntled feelings, but, the easy access to guns can be controlled. And, sadly, that’s unlikely!
Steve Little
Portsmouth
Banning access to guns makes as much sense as banning access to cars
Jan. 26 − To the Editor:
Responding to today’s letter "Easy access to firearms is one common factor in all mass shootings", I would pose these questions:
The anti-gun former airline pilot says access to firearms continues to kill people. That is an overbroad statement without quantifying it designed to incite panic and spread inaccurate information.
Here are some facts from the CDC, as of May 2022, we have deaths from drugs of Synthetic Opioids (fentanyl) 71,238, Psychostimulants (meth) 32,856, Cocaine 24,538, Natural/semi-synthetic (prescription) 13,503. This totals 142,135 avoidable deaths of Americans because we make these drugs accessible more so than firearms. Let’s talk about drunk drivers, there are 10,360 motor vehicle deaths due to alcohol as both booze and cars are so prolific and available to anyone.
So, when are we going to have the hue and cry to eliminate drugs and alcohol? Is it because these two factors drive the U.S. economy? Is it because the gentry, and the well heeled enjoy a cocktail at the country club and decide to drive home, yet the people demand police protection and a safe place to live, thrive and survive.
The moral here is that not everyone who owns a firearm or is proficient with them is a lunatic or criminal. So, when one of your friends has a few pops and is wielding a loaded Mercedes Benz S class, he or she has a loaded gun and is shooting errantly into the road and whatever is in its path.
I agree that everyone does not need to own an arsenal of combat weapons. I agree that we need uber strict regulations to own and carry a firearm. At the same time, we still have a Constitution and as U. S. citizens, are guaranteed certain rights. That means that we can still own a firearm and purchase one legally inasmuch as we can buy a fully loaded combat ready Mercedes Benz to get drunk in and run over innocent people.
T. Stephen McCarthy
Portsmouth
This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Disappointed in letter supporting rights of racists: Letters
