In response to Andrea Hauser’s column (“Even the `king of queers’ protected”), in order to better understand people’s point of views, let’s change the situation a little.

Let’s say we take a current truthful documentation and turn it into a play. How about how non-white people where treated in the 1960s? But instead of condemning the treatment of these non-white people, this play was written to somehow make it seem like it was a deserving treatment for non-whites.

Let’s also say that in this play the treatment toward non-whites was out of love and understanding towards protecting the white race. That would be the real message of the play.

A truthful historical event, but told according to another side of an opinion.

Free speech? Or just hoping to stir up enough controversy to make a few bucks? Let’s face it, no marketing exposure equals no money.

Would you allow this play on the ISU campus at no charge for the use of the campus – which is paid for by you and your tuition?

Here at Iowa State, we can not discriminate against gay people who “choose” to live in a homosexual relationship over a heterosexual marriage. But yet, we can discriminate against a religion as a lifestyle I choose to live.

So I ask you, when does a play’s “freedom of expression” (freedom of speech is reserved for the “truth of information being presented,” not for the fun of making a controversial play) – become more of a constitutional right than my freedom?

Nancy Suby-Bohn

Junior

Civil Engineering