WITHOUT DISSENT IT ISN'T AMERICA
Why was this irritating? There's many reasons, I don't know quite where to start, but we could begin with the indisputable fact that dissent in of itself is not infallible. The Flat Earth Society is a voice of dissent against the establishment's belief the Earth is round. We presume the makers of this flyer are speaking in context of the supposed upcoming war against Iraq, and are likely against it. Would these anti-war people feel comfortable that they are part of the establishment and not the dissent with regards to the shape of the Earth? Would these anti-war people be in favor of war if most everyone was against it?
These people might say that their freedom of speech is being curtailed, but I know of no instance where such a thing has happened. It probably never occurred to the anti-war crowd the very fact they complain about such thing is proof their free speech is not being curtailed.
But what is irritating is the implied statement I percieved by the statement "without dissent it isn't America", which leads me to believe after these anti-war people who are unable to come up with examples of illegal restrictions of speech, must say that there is a de facto limitation by accusations that these anti-war people are anti-American and such. That by being a voice of dissent, it is not only untrue that they are anti-American, but they are the example of what an American should be.
In fact, by being called anti-American, these people have not lost their freedom of speech, but rather wish not to be called anti-American. They are offended by the idea that anyone should disagree with them. In a society where free speech exists, you will be confronted. The fact is that these anti-war people feel they are beyond criticism themselves, being the ideal Americans as a voice of dissent. They are simply incapable of coping with the fact that the shoe can be on the other foot--they are being dissented against. The price you pay for having free speech is facing criticism. Free speech is not on trial. However, some members of the anti-war camp are interested in that certain types of free speech are. If they truly had a good argument against war, they should depend upon the merit of their argument, not a pathetic cry against having their feelings hurt by the fact that not everyone--in fact most people--don't agree with them.
This piece of crap written on 2/7/03.