Letter: Speech is legal but not moral

So, you don't like the president and you don't like Congress. I get it. So, Kathy Griffin held up an image resembling the president's decapitated head and a New York theatre enacted a play in which a person looking like the president is stabbed to death. Both defend their right to do so based on freedom of speech. Griffin was in tears at her news conference crying that she was bullied by the first family. I am confused. Who was the bully - the one holding the head or the little boy who thought his father had been murdered? Is this freedom of speech? Today someone thought it was within his right to shoot members of Congress. Does anyone see a correlation?

Apparently we are legally free to express ourselves by showing an image resembling the president's decapitated head and depicting the stabbing death of our president, but being legally free to do so doesn't mean it is morally right. But wait we want a godless society and want to make our own rules unencumbered by Judeo-Christian ethics. If we have no moral compass and everyone does what is right in his own eyes we have chaos and anarchy.

So, we have the apparently tolerant liberals of Hollywood and theatre depicting violent crimes toward the president and they are legally free to do so. They send the message that if you are unhappy with someone just kill them. Legally this is freedom of speech, but morally and ethically wrong.

JoLynn Glanzer

Cedar Rapids