The Debate Over Free Speech, Disinformation and Censorship

To the Editor:

Re “Trump Allies Are Profitable Struggle Over Disinformation” (entrance web page, March 17):

The U.S. Supreme Courtroom put limits on free speech, saying you’ll be able to’t falsely shout “fireplace” in a crowded theater. Basic to our democracy is an knowledgeable voters. But our courts appear to be OK with a flood of lies and propaganda masquerading as information and geared toward burning down our democracy.

This could concern each American for a number of causes, together with the surge of social media websites that include a lot misinformation, the closure of many native newspapers, a decline within the variety of actual journalists, and a rise within the quantity of misinformation unfold by adversaries like Russia and China in an try and have an effect on the result of our elections.

Richard DickinsonRichmond Hill, Ga.

To the Editor:

In the identical approach that semiautomatic weapons and bump shares have been by no means foreseen by the founding fathers when establishing the Second Modification, social media and A.I. escaped their prescience when it got here to problems with free speech.

The commerce of concepts as they addressed it consisted primarily of public discourse through the printed or spoken phrase at social, political and spiritual gatherings. The concept residents would sometime personal transportable digital gadgets that facilitated each the straightforward manufacture and distribution of subjective realities actually surpassed something imagined within the Sedition Act.

America should now deal with two urgent questions that Madison, Hamilton and others have been spared. How will we forestall the yelling of “fireplace” in a crowded theater when there may be neither an precise theater nor an assembled crowd? And the way will we cease home and overseas profiteers who would embrace the resultant turmoil?

Anthony NannettiPhiladelphia

To the Editor:

There’s a distinction between supporting the First Modification and hiding behind it. A presidential marketing campaign that makes use of disinformation to subvert a good and authorized election is undermining the very democracy for which free speech is a bulwark.

Louis GreensteinPleasantville, N.J.

To the Editor:

A Supreme Courtroom choice stopping the Biden administration from deciding what can and can’t be stated on social media would additionally forestall a possible future Trump administration from deciding what can and can’t be stated on social media.

Ronald J. DeFeliceIrvine, Calif.

Senator Ted Cruz Responds

To the Editor:

Re “An Islamophobic Smear Marketing campaign Is Dividing Democrats,” by Lydia Polgreen (column, March 21):

Ms. Polgreen blames Islamophobia for Adeel Abdullah Mangi’s problem in getting confirmed to the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and he or she accuses me of conducting “unhealthy religion ambushes” as a result of I requested Mr. Mangi throughout a Senate Judiciary listening to if he condemns Hamas’s Oct. 7 assault on Israel.

The rationale I requested Mr. Mangi this query — which Ms. Polgreen fails to say — is that Mr. Mangi has refused to denounce statements by the director of Rutgers’s Regulation College Middle for Safety, Race and Rights by which the director referred to Israel as an “occupying power” and accused Israel of partaking in “settler colonialism.” Mr. Mangi donated to the middle and served for years on its board of advisers.

Ms. Polgreen additionally fails to notice that the Senate confirmed one other nominee, Zahid Quraishi, who, like Mr. Mangi, is Muslim and Pakistani American, with 81 votes — one of many highest vote totals for any judicial nominee of the Biden presidency.

The White Home and Senate Democrats don’t wish to defend Mr. Mangi on the deserves of his file, so that they as a substitute accuse his critics of Islamophobia. That could be a shameful assault.

Ted CruzHoustonThe author is a Republican senator from Texas.

Speaking to Youngsters About Most cancers

To the Editor:

Re “Tips on how to Discuss to Youngsters About Most cancers,” by Talya Minsberg (Dwell, nytimes.com, March 22):

We have been saddened to study that Catherine, Princess of Wales, has been recognized with most cancers. Our ideas as therapists instantly turned to her youngsters and the problem of getting tough conversations. We agree with Ms. Minsberg’s suggestions.

Nobody can present higher care than a mum or dad as their little one experiences emotional trials. Sickness is inevitable, and caring for a kid by means of a household sickness is an inevitable a part of parenting. This impacts the mum or dad, too, however they are often only in serving to a baby by attending to their very own emotions first; then they’ll totally concentrate on their little one’s wants.

We imagine that being trustworthy with a baby is all the time finest. Inform the reality, however solely the quantity {that a} little one can hear and digest at any given second. Take the lead from what a baby asks, ensuring the tone and the reply align with the place a baby is. This dialog is an ongoing one which will probably be elaborated on over time.

We imagine that one of the best antidote to the concern and ache of loss is togetherness. As Catherine stated: “Please don’t lose religion or hope. You aren’t alone.”

Elena ListerMichael SchwartzmanNew YorkThe writers, a psychiatrist and a psychologist, respectively, are co-authors of “Giving Hope: Conversations With Youngsters About Sickness, Loss of life and Loss.”

To the Editor:

Re “Talking Out for Landlines in Digital Age” (entrance web page, March 17):

My spouse and I are on the excessive facet of 65, and we pay for a landline solely as a lifeline as we take care of the endless onslaught of energy outages wrought by Nationwide Grid in Massachusetts, some so long as 10 days in our years right here.

We additionally stay in a cell phone lifeless zone. So our cell phones should depend upon web Wi-Fi for all calls. When the electrical energy goes out, so does the web, therefore our lifeline to the surface world in occasions of disaster.

We plug in two touch-tone telephones to switch cordless telephones when there is no such thing as a juice from Nationwide Grid. Whether or not AT&T, Verizon and others prefer it or not, plain previous phone service (POTS) is as near 100% dependable as you will get. However now they wish to tear out the copper, forcing us to unreliable phone service.

Ben MyersHarvard, Mass.

To the Editor:

You’ll need to pry my landline telephone from my chilly, lifeless palms.

I discover it completely ridiculous and user-unfriendly to carry a display screen to my ear, in addition to to then maintain the telephone again the place I can see the display screen with the intention to discover the keypad, whereas lacking the spoken dialog.

Claire AlbahaeBrewster, N.Y.

Web Entry

To the Editor:

Re “Tens of millions Are Set to Lose Web Entry Subsidies” (information article, March 24):

Throughout our historical past, People introduced mail service, electrification and phone service to all corners of the nation. Why the teachings discovered from these experiences can’t be used to unravel the problem of equally offering residential web entry coast to coast as properly is a damning indictment of our damaged nationwide politics.

Gary RucinskiNewton, Mass.