Imagine for a moment that you wrote a letter to your elected official stating facts then soon after they received it they had you locked up and put under psychiatric evaluation. That is exactly what Carol Shea Porter did to Peter Macdonald after receiving his letter.
Peter stated, "Killing when all other means of redress fails is what our constitution obliges us to do”. Now this sounds like a harsh statement, yes but it is a statement of fact. The NH constitution states “Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
Now I’m certainly not advocating someone run out and shoot politicians they disagree with, in fact the way Peter stated this was out right foolish, but our constitution makes it clear we should not sit back and allow government to oppress us. What he stated, whether you like it or not is a matter of fact. The New Hampshire Constitution out right encourages people to revolt against the government. And what was Carol Shea Porters response to this statement of fact? To oppress Peter even further having him locked away. By doing this she is clearly defining herself as the very type of politician our Constitution sought to protect us from. Taking away a man’s freedom because you dislike what he says or even because his words frighten government officals is out right tyranny. To quote Jefferson on this matter "When the government fears the people, you have liberty. When the people fear the government, you have tyranny."
Now I’ve looked up Peter on the Internet and read a number of his letters to the editor, some are out right extreme while others seem sensible. But even if they were all extreme is that justification for having him locked up? Is speech only free when we agree with what the person is saying? I say extreme political speech including stating that yes our Constitution does encourage revolution against elected officials is the most precious of all speech and therefore should be protected. Those who speak out like Peter should be encouraged even if you disagree with what they said.
But Carol Shea Porter locked this man away for stating fact. She should be ashamed of herself. And quite frankly I find any politician who is willing to lock someone up for stating their mind to be FAR more of a threat to me than anyone writing extreme letters, even letters such as the one mentioned above which may imply a threat which as I pointed out is a Constitutional right in New Hampshire!