Is our free speech amendment in danger?
Cellphones have these marvelous things called “apps.” Using them we can find out any and all things we could possibly want to know – or can we?
Seems these apps have their own agenda. If they choose to they can twist, bend, delete any part of the information you send or receive.
Deletion of “hate speech” is one of their agendas. Good, right? But it’s their version of hate speech, which may not be our definition of hate speech.
Presently it’s becoming political speech that is being deleted, bent, or revised to whatever the party affiliation is. I’m beginning to see similarities of the 1930s Germany-style speech control, much like today’s North Korea, Russia, China, Cuba, etc., control of what’s acceptable or allowed.
Our P.C. and WOKE are beginning to be like the above. Yet our First Amendment does not allow this, but elitists seem to believe that our right to free speech is constitutionally guaranteed as long as it is per their changes. Watch out America – hard times may be coming.
More important issues here than highway signage
Regarding your front-page article about limiting advertising signs on November 1, when I came to the U.S. from England in 1973 I was surprised, even astonished, at the quantity and size of business signs alongside roadways.
In the intervening 46 years, I have come to accept such advertising as a normal part of our society. I find I read them and may act on what I learn. This leads me to what Mr. Mankins said in your article: “If you reduce the signage, customers don’t know, they don’t come by, you can’t afford to pay employees and you close your doors and leave.”
Seems to me to be right on point, and his fear of loss of business affecting employment rings true (I have no business friends or associates in this area.)
From a personal point of view, I would rather our legislators be working on reducing robo calls, a much more serious invasion of our privacy.
A few more thoughts … I’m glad you printed the photo of Highway 160 in Pahrump, showing the signs. If these were removed, we would be left with only the beautiful sight of high-voltage power line running by the road. So what would be gained?
Mr. Mankins also referred to “government taking” and potential litigation resulting from any order to remove signs. How about construing the signs to be opinions of the vendors and therefore protected free speech? Finally, if we want to enjoy nature’s beauty, there are a large number of state and national parks to visit.
Reader takes PVT regular letter writers to task
The supporters of Donald Trump have certainly been busy with their defense of the president. Scott Culshaw supplies us with his weekly and boorish hatred of Nancy Pelosi. Any woman who wants to provide you with health care, eliminate indefinite tax cuts for billionaires and tells Mr. Trump to stop being Putin’s puppet must be a terrific woman.
Then we must endure the ramblings of Fox News addict Linda Delamare, who brings up Benghazi in perpetuity. Really? Benghazi? Hillary Clinton testified before Congress for 13 hours on that subject, while your hero Mr. Trump wouldn’t testify for 13 minutes before the Mueller investigative team. Trump’s own lawyer said his client was “incapable of telling the truth.”
Henry Hurlbut frequently reminds us that Democrats want to take away your guns. Earth to Henry – Democrats are not going to take away your right to self-protection. However, we do have a crisis involving mass shootings in this country and some type of “reasonable gun control” is needed.
Stacy Riney often shares with us the fact that she is a Democrat but hasn’t voted for one in over 50 years. Stacy, you are NOT a Democrat. If you insist on reminding us of all the good things Donald Trump has done for you, try to at least name one specific thing!
I enjoyed the thoughtful and intelligent letter by Ralph Bazan. His thoughts and comments were articulate, well stated and devoid of bias or political spin. I hope he shares his thoughts with us in the future.
Finally, it appears Donald Trump will be impeached. However, before we have countless letters on the subject, I suggest we all watch the testimony before Congress and then comment on the merits of the case. At that time we should have some indisputable “facts” to debate.
Dennis R. Crooks
Thoughtful debate preferable to social shaming
Mr. Ferrell’s PV Times letter in the Oct. 25 edition ostracizing Mr. Culshaw came across as an unhinged rant and not like a well-thought-out argument to Mr. Culshaw’s positions. Mr. Ferrell made many accusations with next to no supporting facts. Citing some poll ratings of “news personalities” is almost meaningless. It is well known the media, in general, has so little credibility today by both sides and especially independence.
Not being afraid to listen to especially thoughtful people, who I don’t necessarily agree with on most things, a Nietzsche quote reflects the thoughts of many. He said, “I’m not upset you lied to me, I am upset because I can no longer believe you.” Mr. Ferrell infers this only happens on one side while to any prudent person this is a false narrative. Open, thoughtful debate is preferable to thoughtful incitement of violence or social shaming to eliminate debate, with an excellent example of all the “openness” of the impeachment hearings.
P.S. Mr. Ferrell should be very upset with the media and the polls for their predictions and forecasts of the 2016 elections. I’m well aware most people can find ways to justify reasons for almost anything. Just listen to Hillary for nearly three years.