“I always think the true test of free speech is when someone says something you don’t like.” Bindi Irwin, daughter of Steve Irwin, The Crocodile Hunter.

The quotation I used for this column came about because of a request by the editors of Hillary Clinton’s e-journal asking Bindi Irwin to write an essay about conservation.

She wrote about the possible threats to the planet of a growing human population and when receiving the essay back it no longer contained any references to population and, in fact, had been completely rewritten. I have to guess that’s the same Hillary Clinton now running to be president of the United States and that’s downright scary.

During my 20-year military career I swore to defend the Constitution of United States against all threats, foreign and domestic. As I am still in the Reserves I have to guess I am still held liable to do exactly the same thing for the rest of my life. The last I knew, freedom of speech was one of the rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens and even if government tries to change it in one way or another, I will always defend every person’s right to free speech whether I like what they say or not.

There’s been a recent push to quell free speech in far too many places. Students and even professors at many college and university campuses have attempted to eliminate free speech if it is not what they believe. I find it somewhat perplexing that liberals don’t want conservative thinkers to have the ability to speak against their ideas. As a matter of fact, that kind of leads me to believe maybe they don’t have the wherewithal to defend what they do believe in. I have to state that I believe that any person receiving taxpayer money should no longer receive that money if they don’t believe in freedom of speech.

Now there are those who want to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO Act) that allows for the prosecution along with civil penalties for racketeering activity of a criminal enterprise to squash our freedom of speech, especially when it comes to climate change. What one might find amazing is that at one time there were only three named federal criminal acts, which were counterfeiting, treason and piracy, and now there are thousands of named federal crimes. Unfortunately there are those in government, especially at the federal level, that saw the powers given to them by the RICO Act. It has been said that this law makes someone guilty before being proven innocent. So what I am trying to figure out is why would someone in government not want someone to speak against the theory of global warming.

Even in California a member of the state’s legislature wants to pass a law that allows the state to use the RICO Act to prosecute anyone who dares to speak out against global warming. Why? Is it because they are Marxists or is it because they have no proof of global warming, especially since it was renamed climate change? It’s something I am not justifying one way or another in this column but shouldn’t everyone have the right to free speech? I have written letters to the editor and guest columns for years, which I and everyone else has to right to do. I couldn’t care less if someone counters my thoughts and beliefs in their own column. But when they state a newspaper shouldn’t print my thoughts and rant on and on about virtually nothing, then I know they don’t care to hear other peoples’ rights.

When it comes to government, perhaps it shouldn’t worry about what we think or say. Rather, it should open its doors as wide as possible so the citizens can really see how it operates. Government has increasingly put more and more screens in order to protect itself from some unnamed enemy which I now have to believe is the citizens it is supposed to serve. Unfortunately I find this occurs at all levels of government.

Lane Hiltunen of Windham thinks he’s moved to the Land of Oz.