Print edition: 
Tweet was simply inappropriate
Oh, come on, folks. The real issue with Emma Sullivan’s tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback is that it was immaturely rude and disrespectful. It’s not about free speech.
Sullivan’s tweet was simply inappropriate. What was her point in writing? She made her disrespectful statement, hid behind an electronic message, then claimed to have said it to him in person. She showed poor judgment and she lied. There is a distinction between free speech and using good judgment to keep your mouth shut if you don’t have anything productive to say. Speech must be tempered with judgment, something Sullivan obviously lacks.
For Sullivan’s mother to condone her daughter’s “right” to tweet whatever she wants is to ignore the concept of what is appropriate. Her insulting tweet was made worse with words having obscene sexual overtones.
Sullivan owes Brownback an apology; it is the morally correct thing to do. How would she feel if she invited a friend over for supper and the friend responded by tweeting the same words about Sullivan’s dad?
PAUL FIEBICH
Derby
Big Brotherism
Bad manners is the worst thing one can say about the Prairie Village high school girl’s tweet about Gov. Sam Brownback. But if you put her comment in the context of tens of thousands of Americans making negative public statements about their politicians every day, it is known as free speech in democracy.
What was a bit frightening about the whole incident, though, was the revelation that Brownback’s paid staff has been instructed to monitor available communication media for comments about the governor. This practice (given the fact that a report was made to and punishment was administered by the girl’s high school principal) smells of Big Brotherism, which used to be practiced only in totalitarian systems, not in democracies.
BELA KIRALYFALVI
Wichita
Not ‘everybody’
I have to say that I found it a little flippant that The Eagle editorial board would say that “Brownback’s aides cannot be faulted for monitoring what’s being said on social media. Everybody’s doing it” (“Embarrassing episode,” Nov. 29 Eagle Editorial).
First, “everybody’s doing it” is neither factual nor a suitable reason. A very, very, very small number of people are checking to see what is said about their bosses. Additionally, everybody at one time was doing the Hula-Hoop. That didn’t make the Hula-Hoop a great societal advance.
Second, surely the reason for such monitoring should be taken into account. If a politician does so in order to find out what the people think of his or her policies in order to improve them or to bring them more into sync with what the people want or need, that seems appropriate. That seems not to have been the reason in this case.
Third, I’m sure that the “everybody” who is carrying out such monitoring is not being paid by the people who are being monitored.
So, I have no difficulty at all faulting the governor’s staff for the kind of “monitoring” it apparently is doing, and I, for one, resent having to pay for it.
PHILIP H. SCHNEIDER
Wichita
