Lois Eisenberg’s letter about Olympic athletes (June 19) and free speech misses the point.
No one has to deny free speech in order to criticize how that speech is used. Olympic athletes have the right to speak. Spectators have the right to boo. Ms. Eisenberg has the right to praise them. Other Americans have the same right to say that using the Olympics as another political stage was inappropriate.
That is not narrow-minded. It is also free speech.
Free speech protects people from government censorship. It does not protect anyone from disagreement, criticism, embarrassment, or consequences from other people or organizations. Ms. Eisenberg seems to leave that part out.
Arthur Saginian’s point was a fair one: Just because you can do something does not mean you should. Ms. Eisenberg never really answers that. She simply repeats “free speech,” as if having the right to say something automatically makes it wise, appropriate, or beyond criticism. It does not.
Free speech does not mean applause is required.
Ms. Eisenberg also puts far too much weight on the reported booing of Vice President JD Vance. Even if some spectators booed him, that does not mean “the crowd” spoke with one voice. Boos are loud. Silence is not. The people who did not boo had no way to “out-silence” the people who did. At most, the booing shows that some people in attendance disapproved of Vance. It does not prove that America is disliked, that the booing was justified, or that Ms. Eisenberg’s political view is “the truth.”
That is the problem throughout her letter. She calls the administration “toxic,” the athletes “wise,” their critics “immature,” then closes with, “the truth will set you free.” Calling your side “the truth” does not make it true. There is a difference between making a logical argument and just declaring your side right.
Olympians are talented, disciplined people. They work hard and deserve respect for their athletic achievements. But being a great athlete does not automatically make someone politically wise. Their opinions are allowed, but they are not sacred.
The Olympics are one of the few events where Americans of all political beliefs can cheer for the same flag and the same team. That does not mean athletes lose their rights. It means there is still such a thing as judgment, timing and respect for the setting.
Ms. Eisenberg even ends by suggesting that another writer should leave opinion writers “to their own devices.” That is an odd position from someone giving a lecture on free speech. Apparently, athletes may speak, crowds may boo, and she may praise them — but those who disagree should sit down and be quiet.
That is not free speech. That is selective free speech.
The athletes had every right to speak. Ms. Eisenberg had every right to agree with them. The rest of us have every right to say turning the Olympics into another political stage was a poor use of that freedom.
Arthur Tom
Valencia
