Those offended by Pace have free speech rights too

Kristi Lafree is absolutely right that the First Amendment protects Gen. Peter Pace’s right to make whatever statements he likes about his personal moral convictions. But the First Amendment only offers protection from legal consequences of free speech, not a guarantee of immunity from the social consequences of a given statement.

Furthermore, if the University officials who granted Gen. Pace his award do not wish to be associated with his inflammatory statements, it is equally their First Amendment right to revoke the award. Gen. Pace is responsible for what comes out of his mouth and must suffer the First Amendment right of others to denounce him.

Clearly, this is not really about freedom of speech. It hardly seems likely that if Gen. Pace had expressed his disapproval of sexual relations between two people of different races there would be a Constitutional outcry about revoking his award.

Ms. Lafree’s argument is transparent. She clearly shares Pace’s moral sense, but since homophobia has rightly become discouraged she has dressed it up as a righteous crusade for freedom.

Of course, it is her right under the First Amendment to express her views, but it is also the right of the Indiana Daily Student to determine whether it wants such nonsense represented in its Opinion section. I hope that the IDS will exercise that right in the future.

Ben Feddersen
IU senior