In reply to Lester Hadsell’s letter to the editor entitled “Obscenities inappropriate,” I would like to say that Hadsell’s willingness to debate free speech is quite admirable, except for the part where he dismisses it before he even begins. To say that the issues surrounding Howard Stern should be part of a larger debate on free speech is just fine, but to go as far as to say that he is ashamed of RPI because one Poly staff member dared to exercise his right to free speech and say what he meant instead of what some sort of archaic elitist polite society dictates is ludicrous.

Censorship has gotten totally out of control in this country. Granted, total freedom of speech is not possible (or even a good idea). Screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, for instance, can get people killed and as such should be illegal. But harsh words? Give me a break. People always give the same excuses of “It offends me,” or “I don’t want my children to hear that.”

I was a child once, and believe me your children will hear it anyway—not that there was anything wrong with them hearing it in the first place. As for it offending people like Hadsell—I guess it’s a matter of majority. Clearly, if some people find certain words offensive and other people find censorship offensive, both cannot be satisfied. I don’t know much about the world in general but I’d lay good odds that if everyone at RPI took an equal vote, Hadsell would find himself in a strong minority at best.

I for one, and many of my colleagues, with whom I have discussed it, thoroughly enjoyed Andrew Tibbetts’ editorial not only as an intellectual piece of literature but also as something actually written with the language of the day—not some sort of censored politically correct ideal that, at the very least, a growing minority of the human race no longer subscribes to or tolerates. Many people—myself included—find censorship far more offensive than Hadsell finds “vulgarity” and I’m glad to see that someone at The Poly is actually in touch with reality.

Robert Otlowski