Readers React: Free speech does not mean neo-Nazis ought to escape responsibility for what they say

To the editor: The Times Editorial Board supports the dismissal of a civil lawsuit against the founder of a neo-Nazi website on the basis of our right to free speech guaranteed by the 1st Amendment. (“Racist internet trolls aren’t a reason to cut back on free speech protections,” editorial, Jan. 26)

I too believe that free speech rights should be protected. However, I understand the protection is from criminal prosecution and from government efforts to shut down the free flow of ideas and opinions by imposing penalties.

I do not believe the 1st Amendment allows us to avoid all responsibility for what we say. The suit brought by real estate agent Tanya Gersh, who was targeted by a white supremacist website, is a civil one. She and members of her family have received hate mail and death threats.

She should have the right to sue for damages. It is up to a judge or a jury to decide if she deserves to recover them.

Kay Hopkins, Leawood, Kansas

..

To the editor: The most extreme trolling is largely the result of anonymity. Requiring all who post comments online to use registered, validated accounts and their own actual names would reduce this kind of trolling exponentially.

It’s easy to be brutally insensitive or racist while hiding behind a screen name. Free speech protections should apply only to actual people, not sock puppets.

Robert C. Huber, Yorba Linda

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook