OPINION:
The First Amendment reads, in part: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Thus Laura Ingraham’s comments about Parkland, Florida, student David Hogg were in fact protected in the sense that no law prohibited her from saying those things. However, Ms. Ingraham was not protected from others using their own freedom of speech to criticize her. To say free speech is taking a hit because one does not agree with another person’s speech is an invalid argument because the First Amendment does not protect speech from criticism or disapproval (“Free speech takes another hit,” Web, April 4).
Second, the facts that “Laura is a kind, compassionate woman and a practicing Roman Catholic … a single mother of three adopted children … [and] a breast cancer survivor” are all non-sequiturs. They have nothing to do with the argument that the First Amendment is being jeopardized because someone responded negatively to another person’s speech with their own speech.
Ending the argument with “Let David Hogg speak his immature mind and let Laura Ingraham have her say. And then let them debate each other, assuming Mr. Hogg doesn’t want to adopt another role, that of coward” is guilty of the ad-hominem logical fallacy for refuting Mr. Hogg’s argument against Ms. Ingraham’s comments by discrediting Mr. Hogg himself.
The arguments presented in Cal Thomas’ piece are made less credible by its fallacies and faulty reasoning.
HANNA DAWSON
Phoenix
Please read our comment policy before commenting.