Reflections on U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky's determination to censor Mary Miller's comments invoking Adolf Hitler's name to make a point, that the later was "right on one thing: whoever has the youth has the future."

A classical definition of evil is that it is the perversion of good, much like rust on metal. It cannot exist without being a leach, has to have something wholesome to hook itself onto in order to twist. Thus, an evil person has to have attributes of goodness (power, intellect, position) in order to even exist and do damage to self and others. In Western tradition, the devil was said to have incredible attributes that he uses for destructive ends. Similarly for the villain Adolf Hitler: What he said was right insofar as it went, as many other writers have said the same truism using slightly different phrasing.

Ought not Ms. Schakowsky assume the high road and give respect to another in one's stated profession? Doubly so for a first-year elected official? How would Ms. Schakowsky like it if a professional linguist or philosopher parsed her mistakes with razor-sharp accuracy for the times she has erroneously overstated something in the past?

Adolf Hitler's evil regime hurt a huge swath of humanity. But so did Josef Stalin and others. Are all evil persons hereby off-limits to quote in order to press home a point? Just where does Ms. Schakowsky's censorship end? Had Ms. Miller quoted Stalin, would she be just as irate?

Lastly, the chilling effects of government officials censoring others when the latter are making a point is quite scary. As in the medical field, a doctor's unintended therapy's bad consequences can overtake the very good that was intended.

Norman Suire

Elgin

Read this article:

Chilling trend toward censorship - Chicago Daily Herald