I respectfully disagree with Mr. Joseph J. Jacob, who asserts that the First Amendment needs to be tailored to "permit restrictions in the interest of morals and the protection of the reputation[s] and rights of others."

It would be a grave error to tamper with what which has so long protected our public discourse from being dictated by civil authority. It is especially perilous to do so based on current fashions in Political Correctness - or on what offends you or me personally.

We need to consider that the history of this nation, when not viewed through the filmy gauze of nostalgia, is replete with bad morals, bad manners, insults, name-calling, ethnic slurs and gleeful slander. People did not speak in mottoes. Public speech was highly rambunctious - and sensitivity to the feelings of others was seldom a consideration.

Yet the Republic did not perish.

Society regulated those who (in its view) crossed certain boundaries of common decency. An aggrieved party would show up at the editor's office with a horsewhip. There was also the quaint custom of tarring and feathering the malefactor and riding him out of town on a rail. The Feds, what there were of them, looked the other way.

We are actually living in more polite times now than ever. A century ago, every piano bench and home phonograph was amply stocked with "coon songs," some written by African-American composers. Ethnic humor was the norm, and clotted the vaudeville stages. Regarding some of these cultural artifacts fills us with a vague sense of guilt, as if we shouldn't even be polluting our enlightened minds with such images.

The refined people of that day - our immediate ancestors - delighted in blackface turns and ethnic jokes, some of which were quite mean.

We are so sensitive now that we react to the mildest slur. The examples of offensive speech cited by Mr. Jacob are shocking anomalies, publicized and repeated endlessly. That they have been amplified in our minds through endless repetition should not make our Politically Correct knees twitch toward ruining the Bill of Rights. We are too quick to demand a law - or an Amendment - to remedy every problem in society.

Flaws of character should not be subject to micromanagement by the Federal government. Someone who spouts vicious hate speech should be slapped in the face, ignored, laughed at or socially ostracized, depending on the circumstance.

The measure that Mr. Jacob advocates to solve the problem of "vulgar" expression is likely to boomerang and curtail his (and everybody else's) free speech. When a law exists, it can be used by a functionary to wield petty authority to suit any agenda. When the authority is Federal, the word "Orwellian" comes to mind.

The primary unit of government is the individual - and we have to be self-disciplined enough to regulate our own speech and behavior. That certain public commentators lack the sense or sensitivity to avoid giving unnecessary offense is no reason to override our personal sovereignty with more oppressive laws. As a broadcaster, I never turn on the microphone without considering this quote of Oscar Wilde: "A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally."