The opinion piece by Richard E. Vatz ("Schurick's behavior wrong, but not criminal," Dec. 11) seems to be comparing apples to oranges. His premise that the Schurick trial is an attempt to criminalize political freedom of speech is faulty. Sending out robocalls to try to keep voters away from the polls is not the same as claiming "Ehrlich was a Nazi" or "Ellen Sauerbrey was opposed to civil rights."

Uncivil speech, misrepresentation of facts as well as out and out lying seem to be the political norm on all sides during elections. It is not illegal and it doesn't seem to suppress votes. Many times, that type of speech spurs people to vote.

Speech on the day of an election trying to convince a voter that the election has been won and they don't need to bother voting is not freedom of speech but an attempt at voter suppression. That is different from stating your opinion.

Most of the support given that this trial was about criminalizing the freedom of political speech is illogical to me.

Pam Weammert