11/26/99

The Dr. Laura Letters

OK -- Dr. Laura had her say; Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal had his say; I had my say; and young Sara Miller, whose essay started this tempest in a teapot, had her say.

Without further ado, here's what readers had to say. Comments are posted roughly in the order in which they were received, and are edited only for spelling and clarity.

***

"I think that Jeff Schult should wake up and open his eyes. He is a jerk!" W.S.

"Mr. Schult obviously has his own agenda, he writes a very elaborate defense of his position but he clearly forgets the simple principle that Government is "the people." There appears to be a consensus, although Mr. Schult would deny it on constitutional grounds, that the internet shouldn't be an open forum for sick and devious people. Other forms of communication are creative regardless of the subject matter, are not censored by our government because the writers, speakers and artists are willing to provide personal identity. Is this the character of the Internet that you are so willing to defend?" J.Y.

"Dr. Laura is a pain in the butt. She's arrogant, rude and self-absorbed. She has one saving grace -- she's usually right. I oppose regulation of the Internet, but when young Sara Miller writes: "Every person has a different set of moral values that they live by. Nobody's values are wrong, unfit or too strict. No one is perfect. People should be able to live by the values that they make for themselves because that is what they believe in."she deserves to be challenged. Something is wrong in Connecticut for a child to write that and to be applauded." C.K.

"I absolutely agree with Dr. Laura only because your winner's comments that "Every person has a different set of moral values that they live by. Nobody's values are wrong, unfit, or too strict." are ridiculous, as Dr. Laura pointed out.

"Maybe we don't need the government in every aspect of our lives but they certainly SHOULD have some control over what goes out. Using the "free speech" argument doesn't always apply. I'm sure our Founding Fathers didn't have pornography and information on how to kill people in mind when they said we should have free speech.

"Maybe someday if some pervert harms this little girl (I sincerely hope not), we can ask her and her parents if they think "nobody's values are wrong or unfit." I say the parents because they obviously agreed with her." B.T.

"I wish some one would take Dr. Laura off the air." J.D.

"I enjoyed your response to Dr. Laura's comments. I have one additional comment that relates more to the fact that a person in her position on national radio should take responsibility for their own stupid commentary. For someone with her education, supposed perspective and understanding to make a statement that "If this were my daughter, I'd probably put her up for adoption" is sickening. The insensitivity and ignorance in that statement is appalling. Being the parent of two adopted childen, it frightens me to hear the apparent negative status she associates with "adopted". Should anyone that is adopted be banished from the face of the Earth?

"While free speech is accepted as a fundamental liberty in this country, it is unfortunate that some people take advantage of that liberty to make unfounded, savage, and misleading remarks like this without taking responsibility for impacts on their potential influence on others.

"Will Laura Schlessinger rise to the occassion and apologize to the (unfortunate) millions of people who heard her insensitive comments? I think she would be hard pressed to explain why there is any way, but negative, to respond to her statement.

"Dr. Laura should take comfort that she is allowed to make statements and not have the government breathing down her neck. Maybe she should be thankful for people with opinions like Sara's." K.B.

"I just read your open letter to Dr. Laura and subsequently Dr. Laura's comments that prompted your letter. I agree with you that Dr. Laura can be extreme "... I'd give the girl up for adoption ..." now that's real adult, but if you go beyond the ranting and nasty comments and examine the heart of her argument it becomes hard not to see her point. Miss Miller does state that each adult makes their own set of morals that they must live by ... and this on its face is wrong. This is a teen's naive opinion of how it is or should be. The adult's set of morals has to run within the confines of the laws of the nation. An adult's own personal morals is not enough to govern actions as the young Miss Miller seems to suggest. Now don't get me wrong, I feel as you do about restricting the Internet however we hear story upon story about how so many sick (I mean sick, scum-of-the-Earth sick) use the Internet for evil (not a word I use lightly) purposes. It's enough to make your stomach turn. Perhaps an essay that could have shot the middle ground or mentioned parental responsibility or personal responsibility in reference to the Internet might have helped. I also thought that it would only be fair to read Miss Miller's essay also. It wouldn't have passed through me. I agree with her conclusion but I felt her reasoning was poor (name-dropping authority with poor support) and her organization was scattered. The essay repeated itself and became tiresome and hardly inspired the reader to continue to the next paragraph. If this was the winner, the pool must have been shallow. I have my M.S. in Education and I know what it's like to read paper after paper but I am surprised this essay won, for different reasons than Dr. Laura." S.M.

"Well done ... I am glad that my family is grown and living independently. Given the free-spirited thinker that my daughter is I would probably have had to give her up for adoption, too (thank God that the essay contest was in 1999 and not when she was in school.) I am glad that my eyes were opened as were yours! Keep up the good work." L.S.

"The issue is truly a form of free speach, via electronics, and should not be government controlled. The control of your young persons morals, guidance etc. must come from the parents as the young person is raised within the household. To do, or expect otherwise, is not going to work. It is like blaming all the teachers if your child does not learn. We are already putting too much responsibility on everyone else, in an effort to find a scapegoat for most of our own dilemmas, and by that example we are teaching our children to do the same, so don't blame the Internet any more than you can blame the library, or the newspaper.

"I am an "old gee" by normal standards, and even I still have to work on two basic things in my life: 1. When you critique a younger person, be sure you remember back to when you were that age, and think again. 2. Today is today, and problems must be solved from today's perspective, not your age perspective. Age may give you wisdom, but don't mistake age for a guarantee of intelligence. The "Old Guy"

"What the hell is going on here? I pay $18.95 a month to visit this site to find out the status of the network, not to see some left-of-center nitwit who is obviously having major guilt pangs over an essay she presided over. I won't continue my Internet account here if you're going to turn this web site into a liberal non-think tank. Please refrain from the politics in the future, left or right." T.M.

"I've never been a great fan of Dr. Laura (due primarily to her arrogance or perhaps perceived arrogance); however, I must laud her for her stand regarding Connecticut's "Law Day Essay Contest." Dr. Laura reveals a true understanding of morality -- one with which I cannot disagree, and I, too, thank her for opening your eyes! And to you I say congratulations for taking the risk to reflect on your actions, to admit to your error, and to learn from your experience -- to me you have demonstrated intelligence and moral growth. I hope your other colleagues have done the same.

"I must, however, take issue with both Dr. Laura and the Attorney General's Office. First, Dr. Laura should be tarred and feathered for her public condemnation of Sara Miller. Although Sara's content may be questionable, I'm certain many parents and teachers would cherish an 8th-grade essay as articulate and well structured as Sara's. She did as requested and did her best. Most definitely, Dr. Laura errs in her accusation of Sara as the daughter to put up for adoption (not to mention Dr. Laura's negative image of adoptees!); rather, Sara's teachers, parents, and community role models deserve reprimand here. A thirteen year old, like Sara and her writing peers, has not yet formed a true set of moral values; they still are developing. I only hope Dr. Laura has not permanently paralyzed Sara's ability to grapple with ideas and values as she struggles to define her identity during the next few years -- a crucial phase of adolescence.

"As for the Attorney General's Office, I am majorly disappointed but not surprised. Like everything on the "Hill," politics prevails, and the choice of judges is a clear example. The panel consisted of mostly PR types. In a situation like an 8th grade essay contest, the judges should have been more thoughtfully selected. Rather than appease the media and those who deal with the media, panelists such as teachers, university educators, psychologists, along with lawyers and tech specialists would have prevented such appallingly shallow approvals of the essays! Further, did our Attorney General actually read the winning essays? I would hope that our esteemed Attorney General could recognize the students' limited and potentially harmful interpretations of morality! Or did his office merely release his fabricated comments to the press?

"Hats off to Dr. Laura for reminding us about the meaning of morality. Hats off to Jeff Schult for demonstrating the integrity to admit to error. Shame on the Attorney General's Office for not taking seriously the education of our most precious commodity -- our youth." M.S.R.

"To Jeff -- Without being long-winded let me say that Dr. Laura has a point, and that's hard for me to admit because her on air behavior thoroughly irritates me. Without some commonly accepted values, we have no society, and certainly not "civilization." Sara must have built quite a case for your panel to essentially endorse that point of view. ... All this said, I enjoy your work." N.L.

"Well, I didn't know all of this was going on. I guess I've been too busy to keep up with it. When entering any essay contest, are you judged on your beliefs? I think not. You are judged on how well the essay is written. It all seems very simple to me." A.A.

"Thank you so much for alerting me to the evils ... LOL... I have listened to Dr. Laura on and off (lately off) as I travel through the Hamden area, and WELI continues to air her decidedly biased views ... This is to applaud your stand, and your common sense, for all of us in Connecticut." B.

"I wish SNET were as liberal as Ms. Miller and allow me to read anything I want. Time for another ISP." W.A.

"I would like to voice my opinion on the subject of the Internet and free speech. It has come to my attention that there is and always be some sort of censorship no matter where we as a society go, due in part to each persons moral upbringing. While "they," as the moralists, don't want you looking at what they see are lewd and lurid material, it is out there for all to look at if they so choose to. Censorship should be up to the individual to look or not look at what ever they want. It is up to the parents of these children, who do surf the 'Net, to regulate them as to what they feel is "wholesome" material for them to view and download.

"What should be done, is not promote censorship of the 'Net as that will bring on its ultimate demise, but, bring the legal system into cyberspace, so that current real life crimes can be applied to the electronic world so that cyber thieves and the like can be caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Consider online banking. How easy would it be to steal someone's life savings or their charge card number to go on a buying spree at someone else's expense? Or worse yet, money laundering of billions of dollars in drug money from off shore. Real life crimes, yes, but how do you arrest these people and get a conviction with jail time and not create a boondoggle of laws that either don't work or reflect a wanton disregard of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It seems hard to do. Careful wording is a must so that this will work.

"To get to our current set of laws and standards took 200-plus years, with many legal precedents set. The web as we currently know it is only a few years old and will take many more to develop into something that will be proud of for all to enjoy. I can only hope that it will be a safe environment for young and old alike, without the censorship of a fascist or communist government." S.T.

"I never did like Dr. Laura and now I like her less. Seems that she over reacted a might bit to Sara's essay. On the other hand maybe Sara should have said "no one's morals are wrong ... within reason." I agree with Dr. Laura that someone who believes that rape is OK is wrong ... Maybe everyone should relax, chill out and let Sara make one mistake out of the whole essay. On the other hand Dr. Laura needs to stop generalizing that everyone in Connecticut as immoral. Did you ever goof, Dr. Laura?" R.H.

"What the hell is wrong with Dr. Laura? I find that woman offensive, with her holier than thou attitude. She seems to have forgotten her past -- nude pictures, premarital sex, not talking to members of her family. I think she should be censored for her rudeness, obnoxiousness, and the treatment of listeners who call her. What if a child hears her show and she influences the thoughts of that child? Is this what the parents necessarily wanted for there child? Censorship comes in many forms, good and bad, wanted and unwanted. Good censorship: Censor Dr. Laura. Bad censorship: Any other form." G.C.

"Like most moralists on the AM airwaves, Dr. Laura seems better able to cast stones than to recieve them. A brief look at her own biography shows a complete lack of basic ethics and morality. She has little skills and qualifications in therapy, her doctorate is not in medicine or in phsychiatry, and her family practice certification was only obtained to allow her to do her show. A quick perusal of her life story (easily obtained, as it is published) will show a character that is quick to judge others as she thinks of her own life. Giving her even a moment's consideration as to her opinion is not worthy of your time." G.P.

"I was troubled by the one sided approach you are taking in addressing the controversy over the Internet Essay Contest. Mr. Schult's comments, and the Attorney General's, are sarcastic and mean-spirited. There is little attention to fact or history in their writings. There are those who believe that our laws are based on moral law (for example it is for moral reasons that the Attorney General opposes the death penalty). You should give another party the opportunity to respond to Mr. Schult's diatribe. I would like that opportunity." D.D.

"Your letter indicates the status of morality in the public schools of Connecticut. The truth is there is none. The most liberal state in the country has abolished all morality for politically correct garbage as stated in your letter. What a moral mess this state has become." J.T.

"We have to remember that MOST talk shows are on the air for their sponsors. Can we guess the stance of the talk show host based on their sponsorship? Plain and simple, what is said is for the dollars/ratings. Don't sweat it! There is no intellectual input or output from these shows (TV or radio.)

"The essay showed great research and focus. I thought the subject and the writing was great." B.K.

I always suspected Dr. Laura was as guilty of promoting sensationalism as Jerry Springer! Did she actually read the winning essay or does she simply not comprehend the written word? She picked out one paragraph, exploited it, and in her hysteria portrayed a well-written, thoughtful essay as the mindless ramblings of an immature child. The transcript I read of her show does not cite the First Amendment nor the Supreme Court ruling nor parental responsibility. Those were the key points of Sara Miller's essay. Apparently, Dr. Laura does not believe in freedom of speech, the Supreme Court and the ability of parents to teach their own children values. Would she feel differently if her show were banned from radio due to government restrictions regarding content? The few times I have listened to Dr. Laura, I was greatly offended. Not by the subject matter, mind you, but by the good doctor's patronizing attitude! Congratulations to Sara Miller for writing a coherent, mature, well researched essay! Shame on Dr. Laura for using a child to win ratings!" P.B.

"As much as I loath this state and dream of the day I can leave it and raise my children in a more laid-back, less breakneck crazy place -- I have to disagree with Dr. Laura and her opinion. The little girl who wrote that essay made a good point -- people with their own values have to make their own decisions about what is right for them. People WITH values do not molest children, THAT sort of action indicates NO VALUES. ... As to answer what is wrong with Connecticut? We are taxed to death and borderlining on socialism." D.

"Great job on the letter to Dr. Laura, it's about time someone took her to task. Thank you for being the one." C.B.

"I'm not sure who Jeff Schult is but I have two observations. 1. I have been a longtime listener to Dr Laura. I have noticed a trend over time that she has become more conservative, more strident, more "dictatorial" in her views and attitude towards issues and people with whom she disagrees. I still listen but find myself often turning to another station when she starts one of her tirades. 2. I find it hard to believe that a 13-year-old student would compose such a detailed essay, heavily referenced with Supreme Court findings. However, I assume those who read it did enough research to verify it was her compostion. I do disagree with her viewpoint that everyone values are OK, that there apparently there is no standard to which we can judge a person's actions. We do have standards. Perhaps Sara meant it only in the contest of people selecting what they wish to read and see on the Internet." G.C.

"It was amazing that I was able to read your article as well as the links on today, Thanksgiving Day! The framers of the Constitution had more foresight than we of the modern generation realized. There are already too many laws infringing on our rights as "free" people. Enforcement is the issue I struggle with constantly ... when is it an invasion of privacy/or loss of a privilege? I agree with you and others, we may not like or agree but at least at present we have the free thought and process to disagree. Thank God I live in the USA and especially Connecticut." P.S., a proud grandmother

"I have listened to Dr. Laura a few times and think she's a self-righteous, judgmental and rude person. Things aren't black and white, and people are complicated. We all have different upbringings, frames of reference, etc. Yeah, sometimes people don't make good choices or get mixed up in bad situations. It's not usually intentional or done consciously. People are not going to learn through quick judgments, crude remarks, interruptions, sarcasm, etc. If she doesn't catch herself, her fame is down the tubes. If she doesn't care, she's validating what many are now thinking, that she is a full-fledged egotist with little to positively contribute to this society." C.C.

Please send questions or comments to web.editor@snet.net.