To the editor:

“Blurring of Terrorism.”

The banner headline in the June 12 Journal-World reads: “FBI issues eco-terror warning for city.” Honey, grab the kids and dog; let’s head out of town.

It turns out that this “terrorism” will likely be in the form of a demonstration at the Douglas County courthouse and a screening of a documentary film at the public library.

So what other forms of “terrorism” might we be watchful (fearful) of? Perhaps:

• Those protesting unfair or unsafe working conditions (“labor-terrorists”).
• Those protesting the war in Iraq (“domestic terrorists”).
• Those protesting the high price of good basketball tickets (“fieldhouse terrorists”).

The dictionary defines a “terrorist” as one who uses violent or intimidating means to coerce changes in a government or community. When we allow the present administration or our local newspaper to use this term loosely, it loses all meaning.

Yet, the Bush administration — and the media outlets that favor it — would paint the term “terrorist” on all those who disagree with their interests. This is a recipe for undermining our democracy. It is a prescription for not trusting our own neighbors.

So, next time we hear “terrorist” used too loosely, we should all ask: Who benefits from using that term, and how? What do we all lose — what aspects of freedom and justice are given up — when “terrorism” is the label given to protest?

Steve Fawcett,

Lawrence