I am writing in response to the July 7 article ("Free speech area limited"). In particular I am writing a counter-argument to opinions expressed by Dan Leathers, co-coordinator of the Penn State chapter of the ACLU. Mr. Leathers is quoted in the article as saying that the free-speech zones set up by the university are a "blockade to freedom" and that they are "unacceptable."

Mr. Leathers' opinion has clearly not been thought-out from all points-of-view. It is true that everyone has a right to free speech and public demonstration; however, everyone has a right to walk to the classes for which they've paid, access public buildings on campus, and use the road system to get from place to place.

The universities free-speech zones are designed to prevent obstruction of daily activities. Mr. Leathers says that limiting the venues in which large demonstrations can take place is a blockade to freedom; but large demonstrations in certain places are a blockade to students' freedom to live out their daily lives, in both a figurative and literal sense.

Everyone is worried about their own rights, as they should be; but we must consider the rights of others. A completely "free" society, in which students would be able to demonstrate anywhere, would not be a free society for those who could not reach their classes.

If the free-speech zones were eliminated, and students were unable to travel to classes because of protesters, would Mr. Leathers be defending their rights?