Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Editors reserve the right to edit letters for spelling, grammar, punctuation, excessive length and unsuitable content.


What was reason Susan Rice unmasked surveillance targets?

To The Daily Sun,

Susan Rice is in the news. We all know now that she blatantly lied about Benghazi.

Now she said last week she knew nothing about Trump and his transition team under surveillance.

She said she did not unmask "for political purposes".... Therefore, she knew and lied yet again.

She said she did not leak any information. She did not have to leak anything. As soon as she unmasked identities of people under surveillance, all this information was sent to FBI, CIA, and all other federal agencies. And just before Obama left the White House, he changed it so that unfiltered information is exchanged to agencies.

Susan Rice unmasked the identity of persons under surveillance. When unmasked, the identity was then sent other agencies. So she did not leak, just unmasked the people so other people could leak ...

National Security Advisor Susan Rice made the case to have the identity unmasked and then it just went to the other agencies. Why did she have it unmasked? There must be a good reason? What is that reason?

Susan Rice along with John Kerry said the Syrians had destroyed all the chemical weapons. Oops. Another lie.

Linda Riley

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 376

Those who use hate speeach can still be held accountable

To The Daily Sun,

I would like to thank Ben Lassen for his intelligent and informative letter explaining some things about Islam. It was wonderful change from the usual hateful, ignorant, Muslim-bashing letters one often sees in the pages of The Sun.

Some of these letters amount to "hate speech." Of course, even pure or symbolic hate speech is generally protected by the Bill of Rights. That is as it should be. After all, we do not have a constitutional right not be outraged and offended. We do have a right (and a moral obligation) to speak out against such garbage.

Still, those who use hate speech can still be held accountable if their words can be tied to actions. For instance, one such writer to The Sun might well be held culpable for a hate crime if he were to hit or kill a Muslim even if he did it in self-defense. Why? Because his letters would certainly be admissible and they are so hateful that would be hard to convince many jurors (including this writer) that he did not commit violence because the victim was a Muslim.

In addition, while I am not a lawyer myself, I believe the Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC), an organization which monitors hate groups, has established a good precedent for suing those who use hate speech that incites others to actually commit a hate crime. This has happened to such groups as Klan organizations and the Aryan Nation. Hate speech is usually protected speech but this does not mean that people cannot be held responsible for it.

E. Scott Cracraft

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 300