With increasing fre-quency there are calls for editorial “parameters” re-garding opinions ex-pressed by letter writers.

This isn’t a concept in-cluded in the First Amendment. Those who constructed our funda-mental law knew that the substance of speech would rarely be agreeable to all. It’s more important under the Constitution to be heard than to be agreea-ble. How else can politi-cally equal persons ex-press ideas and individual perspectives if they’re not allowed to speak?

When speech is offen-sive, you do not have to listen to it; you don’t have to expose yourself to dif-ferent ideas. In the letters to the editor, identify the author and skip what they have to say if you will be offended by perspectives or ideas different from yours.

America is rich in its diversity and teeming with differences. Those who need everything pre-sented only in a frame of reference they prefer will repeatedly be upset by different perspectives and speech content. When this happens, there is a ten-dency to forget the golden rule, to forget tolerance, and to forget other social teachings; there is a ten-dency to lash out with personal attacks on the person who is causing dis-comfort.

Free speech, regardless of the subject, allows us to gain an acquaintance with the speaker by how they express themselves. Some are fearful, some are angry, and some want to inform. Some do not know how to argue an idea -- they often resort to personal attacks.

Those who would ho-mogenize speech so that no one is offended might also wish to homogenize other aspects of culture to guarantee equality. They need to recognize that for every freedom that can be exercised under our Con-stitution there is a re-sponsibility to exercise that freedom well.

Current editorial poli-cies of The Fountain Hills Times honor the Constitu-tion and serve the citizens well. They shouldn’t be changed.