Free Speech Lesson: Code Pink vs The Marines

I read an article on Rush's web site that commented on an open letter to the moon bats of code pink, written by Captain Richard Lund, who's military recruiting office at Berkley was vandalized by the wacko's as a "protest."

Recounting, Code Pink came to the recruiting office on September 26, 2007 and, among other things, scribbled the words "Recruiters are Traitors" across the door to the station. They did this during daylight hours, I believe, while Captain Lund was there, but he had no knowledge of what they were doing. He fired off an open letter to Code Pink, which was published in the Berkeley Daily Planet.

Says Captain Lund:

"I don’t consider myself a “recruiter.” I am a Marine who happens to be on recruiting duty. As such, I conduct myself in accordance with our core values of honor, courage, and commitment. I will never sacrifice my honor by lying to anyone that walks into my office. I will never forsake the courage that it takes to restrain myself in the face of insulting and libelous labels like liar and traitor. And, most importantly, I will never waver from my commitment to helping individuals who desire to serve their country as officers in the Marine Corps."

First, let me say how much I admire Capt. Lund's restraint in not finding every member of Code "Flat line" that he could find and showing them what "sending fire down-range" means.

To his credit, Capt. Lund chalks-up Code "Flat line's" miscreant vandalism to exercising their "Constitutional rights," but I don't know that either I or the law should be so generous. Exercising our First Amendment rights does not extend to destruction of government property, which is what was done by scribbling their message "recruiters are traitors."

It seems as though more and more indecent, and criminal behavior is being written off as an exercise of "free speech." Maybe it's time to rein-in free speech a little. Maybe it's time to say to groups like Code Pink, your speech will only be considered "free speech" after you speak it verbally in front of those who are the subject of your "free speech." Maybe we can go farther still, and count the response of the party that is the subject of the other's "free speech" as exercising their own "free speech" in return (come-on, what did you think would happen if some ditz from C.P. called a Marine a "liar and a traitor" to his face?) It wouldn't be considered violence, but "free speech." After all, Marines speak with their actions right? Men like Capt. Lund could lecture a semester in just a few blows -- I mean actions, and hey, it's all just "speech," right?