Just one question

We're already starting to hear a line of defense being trotted out by conservatives in the blogosphere regarding the increasing thuggishness of the pro-war element, particularly in its confrontational invasions of antiwar rallies, as well as the increase of actual violence and death threats (for the latter, see this latest example from Oxblog, via Atrios).

It runs something like this: These prowar marchers are only voicing their own First Amendment rights. What are you trying to do, shut them up?

Answer: Of course not. The prowar side should feel free to express itself. And its solely pro-war rallies are clearly in the spirit of the best kind of robust civil debate.

But many of these so-called pro-war demonstrations, as I've mentioned, are in fact devoted primarily to invading pre-planned antiwar rallies, many of them merely quiet, 30-person gatherings. They are loud, they are intimidating, and the rhetoric used by the pro-war marchers is vicious in nature.

One wonders about their alleged patriotism, and their devotion to First Amendment free-speech values, when their speech is primarily devoted to shutting up, shutting down, and generally intimidating the opposition into silence.

One wonders about their devotion to the very basics of civil society when they engage in bullying tactics. This includes invading peace vigils with loud trucks and obscenity-shouting prowar marchers.

One also wonders why a number of these invasive "pro-war" (which should more correctly be labeled "anti-dissent") demonstrations are in fact egged on by talk radio -- in some cases, stations with unofficial ties to the Bush administration.

All this wondering leads me to one question: Exactly what do these people think would happen if a large group of antiwar demonstrators appeared at one of the now-numerous pro-war rallies with the explicit purpose of breaking up the demonstration and harassing marchers?