To the editor: Contributing writer Josh Hammer’s op-ed asserting that the function of free speech is in the service of truth is a masterclass in hypocrisy and ignorance, starting with: “The foremost goal of politics, since time immemorial, is to best pursue and realize the common good” (“Free speech is valuable, but only when it leads us toward the truth,” Feb. 13). Good for whom?
Since time immemorial, political systems have discriminated against some over others, habitually using violence to enforce that discrimination, with the current administration being the most vivid real-time example.
Next, “‘Blessings’ are realized … by practicing biblical religion.” The statement is a fine example of free speech, but has zero grounding in either the Constitution or reality. Most countries blessed with the highest standards of health and well-being exercise these virtues without any established religion.
Best of all, Hammer should heed his own words about Professor Alan Dershowitz: “The professor is entitled to his opinion, but it is always the truth or falsehood of the matter that we ought to care most about.”
Hammer betrays his argument with his own words about Charlie Kirk, who viewed “gender ideology as irreconcilable with reality” when, in fact, the scientific evidence detailing the complexity of gender diversity is well-established. If Hammer cares so much about truth, he would honor the reciprocal relationship between truth and facts.
In the end, free speech is precisely that: free of conformity to anyone’s definition of it. You pretty much get to say whatever you darn well please, but saying it doesn’t make it so. Hammer’s entire op-ed is proof of that.
Gary Keene, Ventura
..
To the editor: I feel that Hammer has a flawed understanding of the context in which the First Amendment to the Constitution was written.
Never in my readings on the Constitutional Convention and its aftermath have I seen evidence that the intent of the clause on religion was to make “practicing biblical religion” (Hammer’s phrase) a necessary requirement for success in achieving “common good and the truth.” The opening statement of the First Amendment, in fact, hinges entirely on “establishment” — in other words, religion sponsored by and tied to the government.
As we know from our history of colonial America, many colonists were motivated by a desire to be separate from the Church of England, as well as from other government-backed religions. The amendment’s intent, therefore, was to prevent religious coercion of any kind. That is the exact opposite of what Hammer would have us think.
Garry Herron, Seal Beach
..
To the editor: Hammer makes the error of confusing truth with belief. In his view, “the truth” means abortion is murder and gender ideology is “irreconcilable with reality.” But these aren’t truths. They are beliefs, which he can freely espouse because of the First Amendment. Just as I can believe and freely espouse my view that abortion isn’t murder and gender ideology properly recognizes that gender isn’t rigidly divided between male and female, but exists on a spectrum of traits from both.
The free speech clause has nothing to do with the pursuit of truth, but in protecting the right of belief for everyone, no matter how abhorrent some may find it. And genuine truths are revealed by scientific inquiry, not by reading the Bible or Quran or other religious text written long before humans understood the workings of the universe.
Dennis Hathaway, Venice
