Response to 5/6 debate

In the debate surrounding the proposed federal legislation barring demonstration at funerals of fallen soldiers, the conflict eventually boils down to principle or decency. Do we stand behind the principle of free speech or do we support the decency of respecting families’ rights to grieve in privacy?

The government presents much legal precedence in citing case law supporting decency and the family’s right to private and dignified mourning. They also then cited the ultimate sacrifice of our fallen, saying that this is deserving of greater respect and consideration than the consideration offered to dissenters.

The opposition presented arguments against any kind of government imposed restriction, citing the slippery slope argument. Where does the line get drawn? What right does the government have to determine what is appropriate for any given time or place.

The government presents compelling arguments, arguments that appeal to our sympathies and admirable tendencies to protect and honor the families who have given so much to protect our country. The problem, however, is that the history of this country is rife times and social movements that dissent has been suppressed for the sake of decency. History has demonstrated the validity of the slippery slope argument. This was very well demonstrated by the opposition in connecting the principle of freedom in the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement and the Westboro Baptist Church. All of these movements represent a social perspective that was or is not popular in their height.

Our country’s heart and soul lies in our principles of freedom and democracy. Thus, even as we decry the indecency of those who would disrespect the memory of our fallen, let us honor the commitment of our fallen by protecting the very rights they died protecting. Allow society to enforce the societal norms and leave the government to uphold the ideals.