Explaining stickers to children difficult As a concerned grandmother, I have been reading about the obscene stickers Dean Young chooses to display on his car. It seems he is also displeased he can’t get liquor on Sundays. How sad. While we argue over Young’s right to freedom of expression, have we thought about our teens and young children and the message we are portraying? I’m for freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom period. But what about the good moral values we are supposed to be instilling in our youth? Have we forgotten these? There are times I get upset with our police department, but I try to give them benefit of the doubt when they can’t or don’t respond to my needs or others’ as fast as we want. I have to remember I’m not the only one living in Clovis. I’m glad they pay attention to the small offenses as well as the large offenses. They could become very callous with all they have to deal with day and night. I agree with Officer Marty Williamson’s letter in Wednesdays paper. Sometimes we seem to cater to one person when there are many more involved who have to suffer for someone’s spite. I find it disturbing when I have my grandchildren with me and find myself following behind a vehicle that has an offensive sticker on the bumper. My grandchildren want the sticker explained and then ask why a person would want something like that on their bumper. I tell them the person has that right, but I also say they have bad taste and maybe not good moral values and maybe they just need some attention. I think people who make these stickers to sell and people who display them should be ashamed at the message they are teaching our young people. I will be praying for Dean Young and for our police department. Pearl Tivis Clovis Citizen has solution for offensive stickers First let me say the images are deplorable for any child to view on any surface — car truck, van, RV or wall. Second the officer was a little harsh in issuing a citation. I am not supporting either party in their demise. But I have a solution. If Young wants to display the images on his auto, he could use window-cling film. That way he could remove them when he is around individuals with higher moral standards (children, families, senior citizens and clergy). And then when he is around the individuals he wants to impress, the stickers can be easily attached by water and a squeegee. That would make everyone happy. Then our local law enforcement could get back to watching the underweight, tooth-decayed individuals in their crank and crack habits that are demoralizing our community. Rev. D.T. Kendrick Clovis Amendment gives us right to display art I never pay attention to what is happening in my former hometown, but the family seems abuzz because of the latest controversy relating to some guy and a sticker on his car. My first thought was, “Who cares?” But, after some serious thought and a few conversations with close family (not necessarily in that order) I’ve decided to do the American thing and chime in. First, I'd like to tell the man with the sticker: “Rock on, brother. (Forget those) who can’t take a joke.” Secondly, I'd like to respond to the robot cop, Marty Williamson, whose letter appeared last week: Many, many people have “filth” tattooed to their skin and waltz all over your town without any problem from police. As I recall, my right to display my art is protected under the First Amendment. Like it or not, you are going to have to get your head around that and accept it. Where is your compassion? Where is your sense of humor? People are offended? Well, I’m offended that your local churches spend millions of dollars to build grand buildings to their god, yet hungry people go hungry. Where’s their voice? Thaddeus Forsythe Los Angeles Private property no excuse for stickers I went to the Web site ... and saw the (devil sticker). If I had seen this hanging on a living room wall, it wouldn’t bother me. If it had been pointed out to me by a child in a public place, that would be a different story. As far as violating Young’s First Amendment rights, I have read the First Amendment 100 different times and looked at it from every possible angle and I don’t see where it says that you can do something on purpose to make some group angry and be surprised when you succeed! To me, this would be real close to the hate-crime envelope. Some of the responses (letters to the editor) have stated it is his private property, so he can do what he wants. But then they complain about the front-yard junkyards. Isn’t that considered their private property? Joe Christopherson Clovis